Is Yik Kam of Cho Family Wing Chun also Dai Fa Min Kam of Chi Sim Weng Chun ?

[FIRE HAWK]

Are Yik Kam of Cho family Wing Chun and Dai Fa Min Kam of Chi Sim Weng Chun the same person ? This is part 2 of a Wong Kiew Kitt Article on Cho family Wing Chun . I know Wong Kiew Kitt wrote a book on Cho Family Wing Chun but said he will not publish it on the market for sale in bookstores . Hendrik are you ever going to write a book on Cho Family Wing Chun like Rene did on the Yuen Kay San Wing Chun Family Wing Chun ?
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/readings/historical/cho_wong02.html

[Phenix]

Originally posted by FIRE HAWK
Hendrik are you ever going to write a book on Cho Family Wing Chun like Rene did on the Yuen Kay San Wing Chun Family Wing Chun ?
[/url]


Cho Hong-Choy had written a book and letters including the family tree and..... So, i don't have to write one but just follow what my sifu wrote.

As for how others write thier book that is fine with me.
it is a free world certainly everyone has thier right to express themselves.

[Geezer]

So you no longer plan to actually write a book, you mentioned about a year and a 1/2 ago that you were planning to release one?????:confused:

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

No. They are two separate people who played separate roles in the opera (Yik Kam was the Cheung Tan, Dai Fa Min Kam was the Mo Jing) and had separate students. While the word "Kam" may be confusing and seem similar in English, the two actually use different characters for their names (like Weng and Wing are different characters).

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Geezer
So you no longer plan to actually write a book, you mentioned about a year and a 1/2 ago that you were planning to release one?????:confused:

Sheldon


Why confused?
the chinese one is always there. The english one hmmm someone needs to transtlate and decide on how much to release out, right?

Looks like I am going to release some in WWW.Wingchunkuen.com
since it is a neutral site and I don't need coloring.

[Geezer]

Hendrik/Phenix Wrote>

Why confused?

Because you told veryone that you would be releasing one soon?????:confused:


Hendrik/Phenix Wrote>

the chinese one is always there.

Maybe.........hmmmmm,this might be why I'm confused, this is all new to me.......so you have no intentions of releasing a book......Right:confused:

Hendrik/Phenix Wrote>

The english one hmmm someone needs to transtlate and decide on how much to release out

I thought you told everyone you had already made plans to release it:confused: now this has got me real confused;)

Sheldon

P.S.So no book plans in English......like ever, Right?????

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Geezer

Sheldon..

P.S.So no book plans in English......like ever, Right?????


ha ha ha, you are from england? re read my post on top.
My english is no good that's why I need Rene's help. If seems that yours is as bad as mind. so you too need Rene's help.

well, there are serveral copy in chinese release to people in this forum already.
But then, since your english is no good why release one in english ? you can't comprehend it right?:D

[tparkerkfo]

Sheldon,

I really can not understand your motives, intentions, rationalization, or any thing else. It seems all your doing is stiring up you-know-what. Obviously his answer is very clear, dispite your not liking the answer. As he said, a book was already published. If you want info on Cho Family wing chun, go buy it. I will when I can find it.

By the way, on another post, which is now closed, you pointed out a small group of people on Rene's web site and marganalized the others. If you look carefully, you will see others POV. It seems like your point data to suit your POV. Which is similar to what your doing here. Why would Hendrik write a book? No one, except for a small forest of people, are interested in it. Just as some are not to eager to divulge their lineage, others may not be to eager to share with those that are hostile and receptive. Seems to me people want the info so they can try to attack it. LOL. I too would gaurd it and not release it. I am glad that he has release what he has. I am very disheartened that a small group of people did not enjoy what he offered and probably caused the rest of us to be left out of good info. How can people be serious about the history of wing chun when they attack and deny some ones lineage without even hearing much about it. LOL. I see lots of hypocracy from various people.

Your turn to ignore the real questions and to distort or isolate one or two select comments in an effort to change the subject. Tom
________
Maine Marijuana Dispensaries (http://maine.dispensaries.org/)

[reneritchie]

Hi Tom,

I actually do present a wide range of views on my site, including those which do not agree with my own thoughts (even have one on WCK coming from Shaolin!). All I ask is that they be non-political and reasonably well supported (not just sifu sez).

I personally believe that we *need* differing points of view on the topic, and that it only benefits us all to have them.

What I do find interesting, however, is that while some may accuse people who disagree with them as being in some form of collusion, it's rediculous on its face. Unlike they, who do belong to the same school/political group, most of the people disagreeing come from completely different backgrounds, live in different countries, and have very different views on most other subjects. Of course, its easier to make up stories like that than reflect for a moment to see if widespread, diverse, and well articulated disagreements could be meritorious. Oh well, maybe in 5 years or so they'll be disagreeing too, and a new generation will be accusing them of some phantom conspiracy! LOL!

BTW- While Hendrik has never said he was working on a Cho Ga book, he has mentioned, off and on, working on publishing his Kuen Kuit in English (some of which he's graciously posted here already), so while Grandmaster Cho Hung-Choi's book may be near impossible to find if you weren't his direct disciple, hopefully that we can all look forward to.

(And I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that some people complain and whine on end, yet refuse to share about their own lineages, or what their own sifu's have done to modify their lineages, etc. etc. I guess for some its a one way street).

[Geezer]

tparkerkfo Wrote>

I really can not understand your motives, intentions, rationalization, or any thing else.

I didn't know "YOU" were supposed to understand a question I put to someone else, is this a case(again) of you posting an answer about a subject you have no knowledge of:confused:

tparkerfo Wrote>

As he said, a book was already published.

Oh.....the one in Chinese, yes I did see that, but you probably over looked where I asked about the book in ENGLISH.
The same one I remember Hendrik publicly advising everyone about, that was being published soon;)

tparkerfo Wrote>

If you want info on Cho Family wing chun, go buy it. I will when I can find it.

Let me know when you find the one in ENGLISH;)

tparkerfo Wrote>

on another post, which is now closed, you pointed out a small group of people on Rene's web site and marganalized the others. If you look carefully, you will see others

Did "you" see on that closed thread where I referenced the MAJORITY of published articles, also mentioning that there were others as well:confused:

tparkerfo Wrote>

Why would Hendrik write a book?

I think you need to ask him that, I'm just repeating what he advised everyone about and I do think I would be interested;)

tparkerfo Wrote>

No one, except for a small forest of people, are interested in it.

I'm sure Hendrik appreciates that little comment, am I now twisting what you wrote????????

tparkerfo Wrote>

Seems to me people want the info so they can try to attack it.

Is this something you know about first hand??????

tparkerfo Wrote>

Your turn to ignore the real questions and to distort or isolate one or two select comments in an effort to change the subject.

I have enough faith in you that you will see what ever is written as being distorted or isolated;)

Sheldon:D

[tparkerkfo]

Rene,

I credit you for your mostly unbiased nature and your desire to spread and share the art of wing chun. You were one of the first "major" web sites around back in 95 or so when I got out of the army and decided to study wing chun. It is amazing how much flack you get with the dedication you put in. Are you biased. I would say so. Unfortunatly people can not see it and misplace it else where. Your bias is against unfactual data. LOL. It is also funny that "our" forrest is not a small one at all, but a rather large one representing many different lineages. But the ones that discredit are all tied to the same little forrest (Siu Lam-LOL). I just want to thank you for putting up the works your do and hope it continues.

Sheldon,
I wasn't aware this was "Sheldon's board", and that I had to becareful on what I posted comments to. Do I have knowledge about Cho Wing Chun? Not much. But unlike some, I atleast have met the guy, touched his hands, held a decent conversation, and consider him as close to a friend as I can a person I have had little contact with. I have some knowledge of Cho and have seen it. I think that is a little bit more than you have at the moment, which I would think makes me a little more qualified than you on the topic. LOL. Though I admit I am NOT qualified at all.

Yes I guess the book may not be in english. I have may books not in english in my library. I would suggest that if you really want to know, get the book and learn Chinese. Pay to have some one translate it. Oh wait, last we talked I think you said you knew some one who can do that. Though there were some issues in understanding the wing/weng chracters. LOL. So I probably wouldn't trust them either.

Yeah I saw your words and you did mention the others. However, your intent was that only a small section of people are published on that site, and that Rene may have thrown a bone to the other side. Well, maybe it is that those people submited articles. The VTM and other people have there own place to publish, so why do it through Rene? I doubt he rejected any that were submited. Keep in mind that Rene helped to publicize different branches of wing chun more than any other single person. Gee Shim web site is hosted by him. He puts out info for Yuen Kay San. He gives a forum for the Cho Family. He hosted a site for Gualo wing chun as well. Rene has done a fine job and I wish more people can be as constructive as he is. The VTM is doing OK, though I think they can do better.

You seem to suggest that I attack people or stories? I would be interested in know why you think that. Yes I question, But I do not seek info out so I can attack it. I have my own beliefs on certain topics. I would like people to understand there are issues with the tradition stories. If they pass them off as factual, then I will let them know it is not factual. But I never attack the person nor do I ever attack the art itself. Each art has merit and stands on its own regardless of its history. But please, enlighten me about my attacks as I wish to change my habbits.

Again, your turn to extract, twist, parse, ignore, and deflect my comments.

Tom
________
Dc Marijuana Dispensaries (http://dc.dispensaries.org/)

[Jim Roselando]

Sheldon,


Since you have come back on this board you have highjacked and destroyed two adult threads that were going. One was closed and now this one is in the toilet. If you want to find out some information then post a thread and "maybe" it will get answered. If it doesn't then that is probally because of how you present yourself on this forum.

No traditional sifu would give you an answer.

So, why dont you start a new thread and stop the Rene/Hendrik/Chu etc. versus (attacking basically) approach (as even tho you think thats what they are doing any adult can notice thats not the case) as what they discuss has done nothing but good for the WCK community. Rene's site has been helping share a variety of lineages info. for a long time now. Not one particular lineage or theory but a host of them. Others are now following his/their lead which is good.

None of these conversations had anything to do with lineage or any particular group. It had to do with discussing the theories of why WC was Shaolin or not and it also had to do with Hung Mun etc.. Then! The people that had the most to talk about with this thread happened to be Savi, David, Hendrik, Me, Tom, Rene, etc.. So, why dont you add something constructive to the topics and we can all discuss like mature people do. Why do you feel WC is from a secret high level Shaolin? Why do you feel WC body mechanis are Shaolin? Why do you feel WC is quicker to make use of than Shaolin? Why do you feel the art no longer makes use of the Shaolin numerology? Etc. Etc.


Regards,

[Geezer]

Seeing as most anything I repsond to will be deleted I will tread carefully;)

tparkerfo Wrote>

I wasn't aware this was "Sheldon's board",

No it is not my board and I have never given anyone the impression it was:confused:

tparkerfo Wrote>

and that I had to becareful on what I posted comments to

No......it would help tremendously if you had some insight or knowledge of the subjects that questions are asked;)

tparkerfo Wrote>

Do I have knowledge about Cho Wing Chun? Not much.

Thank You!!!!!!!

tparker Wrote>

But unlike some, I atleast have met the guy, touched his hands, held a decent conversation

tparkerfo......unfortunately, I do not feel you are qualified enough to give answers to the questions ask of Hendrik. On the other hand, Rene is!!!!!!!!!!!

tparkerfo Wrote>

I would think makes me a little more qualified than you on the topic. LOL. Though I admit I am NOT qualified at all.

tparkerfo......as referenced above, I do not see that you are qualified with the little experience you have had to answer my questions put to Hendrik!!!!!!!!!!!

Now to avoid this being deleted......I would prefer that you do not respond to this;)

Sheldon

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Sheldon,
I would prefer you didn't reply to many things to :)

You could get a lot more information from people if you treated them with respect and listened to what they had to say. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But treat them respectfully. To my knowledge, I have not seen any of the people you attack treat others with disrespect. Occasionaly people lose their tempers, but on the whole there is respect with the disagreement. You show a serious lack of respect. I think that may be part of why people ignore you and don't supply you with answers.

and good way to avoid all my comments and pick out the things YOU wanted to highlight. LOL.

now, that should officialy kill this thread. LOL

Tom
________
Alaska Medical Marijuana Dispensary (http://alaska.dispensaries.org/)

[Geezer]

tparkerfo Wrote>

To my knowledge, I have not seen any of the people you attack treat others with disrespect.

Maybe you should open your eyes tparkerfo, I think maybe.......now "YOU" are taking sides????????

tparkerfo Wrote>

You show a serious lack of respect.

Just out of curiosity......do you remember your very first post you directed at me on the WCML??????? You seem to show allot of bias, then deny it?????????
I only show disrespect as "YOU" put it, to the people that have no idea what it means!!!!!


Atleast I'm open about who I show my allegence too!!!!!

Sheldon

P.S.Seeing as we have travelled well off subject why don't you send me a PM, if you have any other question you wish to ask.
I will answer them to the best of my ability;)

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Sheldon and Tom,


A couple of points and then we can try to get back on track!


Tom has made contributions with his own personal experience and his own thoughts regarding the different topics that have been out lately. He is not a Cho member but speaks honestly about what he has experienced and that is the most important thing to make a Discussion Board work. I see that as a mature approach to discussion rather than "taking sides". So! Just because he (based on his reading and thinking and experience) has decided to agree with some of the more progressives views he is now taking sides? Funny. I thougth he was a Yip guy and Hung Gar guy. Taking sides with a Yuen guy and Cho guy would not be normally P.C..

You mentioned "Allegence"! Thats great to know! Now, can you explain some of the details on which you used to make your "Allegence" to whom ever you are "Sided" with? Once again! What makes you believe WC is Shaolin or from Shaolin? How do you feel they switched from the Hard Bow to the Yin Sun approach of WC? Why did they change the traditional numerology to WC SLT etc.? What is it that you feel is the deciding knowledge you have read that makes you a die hard believer in what ever you believe in? Any contributions to the discussion would be appreciated.

Now! My Allegence is to WCK and WCK knowledge. I also have Allegence to my Kung Fu family but just because they say WC is from Ng Mui that doesnt mean I have to believe the old fables. As a matter of fact you want to know what they say? Ok! They say WC is better than Shaolin since its younger! Its up to us to see what is more likely rather than less likely and first me must have some information to present or discuss so the conversations can continue in an adult way.


Lets drop the BS (and the battles of the clicks) and discuss good stuff. Technical info. etc..


Regards,

[Chango]

Hello Jim, Sheldon and Tom,

Jim wrote:
<snip>Why did they change the traditional numerology to WC SLT etc.? What is it that you feel is the deciding knowledge you have read that makes you a die hard believer in what ever you believe in? Any contributions to the discussion would be appreciated.

Jim please do not speak for all WCK! When you say SLT etc... That alone tells me that you have yet to see and understand the HFY's SNT and SLT. I think when we look at Chi Sim WCK we also cannot speak in the same terms such as "SLT". So I can only say at this point maybe the WCK that you have been exposed to does not reflect what you refer to as "Traditional numerology". As a matter of fact you will find that with both Chi sim and HFY the roots in Chan alone will place both systems identity well with in Shaolin. Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered.


<snip>Now! My Allegence is to WCK and WCK knowledge. I also have Allegence to my Kung Fu family but just because they say WC is from Ng Mui that doesnt mean I have to believe the old fables. As a matter of fact you want to know what they say? Ok! They say WC is better than Shaolin since its younger! Its up to us to see what is more likely rather than less likely and first me must have some information to present or discuss so the conversations can continue in an adult way.

I agree with your statement here however I have to say that we must first have enough information to make such calls. I can see where alot of assumptions are being made. As a museum member I find that it is not a good idea to assume that just becuase we use the same words and even simular body positions (at first look) that we are speaking the same language. Becuase more often then not each system has a very different idea of what is being said. I cannot say that without face to face interaction that I'm sure we are speaking the same language. I have even seen a few cases with face to face interaction the person still assumed he/she already knew what was being said and missed the entire point. So even with face to face the person has to be ready. I'm not saying that you're ready or not. I hope to maybe meet face to face and offer you interaction a experience as a better frame of reference. I hope this helps the thread along. good day gents!

Chango (saat geng sau)

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Chango


Jim please do not speak for all WCK! When you say SLT etc... That alone tells me that you have yet to see and understand the HFY's SNT and SLT. I think when we look at Chi Sim WCK we also cannot speak in the same terms such as "SLT". So I can only say at this point maybe the WCK that you have been exposed to does not reflect what you refer to as "Traditional numerology". As a matter of fact you will find that with both Chi sim and HFY the roots in Chan alone will place both systems identity well with in Shaolin. Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered.




Hi Chango,


In my humble opinion,

You have a great point. however, what you said also will apply to both party.


I have seen HFY's set and art at the friendship seminal and Robert Chu's place. I have seen Andreas Sam Bai Fut and art in his seminal.


You can be right, Chi Sim and HFY might be belongs to the same group originate from Shao Lin.

and YSK, Koo Loo, Yik Kam, Ip Man....belong to a different group in the red junk. Incidentally, the YSK, Koo Loo, Yik Kam or Cho lineages are converging even they didn't meet and discuss like in this forum since late 1800s.


But that doesn't mean HFY and Chisim are subject to the same group of art.
HFY and Chisim might have a great points. Which I am open to learn about and respect.

However, no one can claim who is older or more original then who.

Such as Benny and Richard's article in Kungfu magazine. Or Sub Yat Sau is the same with Yik Kam SLT set. Any claim like that has to be back up by factual evidents. In term of History, Kuen Kuit, Kuen Po, legacy code, and family tree which is traceable.

Similarly,
I would like to ask The same question to you and all the VTM researchers as you ask Jim.
Have Benny or Richard or even Garret Gee ... has ever saw Yik Kam's Kuen Po, Kuen Kuit, legacy code...... to make such claim in the Kungfu maganize for Cho family and Yik Kam's art?



It will be great for you to show your full Kuen Po, lineage legacy of the set and also the legacy of Chan transmission.

so we all can learn and understand more about your system. and what is the different and the reason of the existing of both SLT and SNT. I don't belive that is only one truth. But to accept a truth one needs factual evidents.


in addition, you say "Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered. "

Try me. I am a Chan Buddist and a disciple of Shao Lin. I will be reasonable.

You question my shao lin knowledge before..
This is my sigong of one Shao Lin art.
http://www.geocities.com/ong_mingthong/Sik_KoSum.html
my sifu is late buddisht monk Ven. Fa Chan of Medan Indonesia.

http://members.lycos.nl/saolim/lifestory_gaocan.html






As a conclusion, the main point of my post is to blind tests the system since everyone love to do things scientificly these days.

Certainly, I hope people response with my post in an adult maner otherwise, it is not a discussion but a side taking act. I have never against Shao Lin because I am also shao Lin disciple.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Chango!


Good to speak with you!


Jim please do not speak for all WCK!

I dont. I speak of my experience and thoughts. Never claimed to speak for all WCK. :-)

When you say SLT etc... That alone tells me that you have yet to see and understand the HFY's SNT and SLT.

I have seen the HFY SLT. Do I understand it? I would say no since i have never studied it but this is not about HFY or any particular lineage. It just happens to be that the HFY guys are the only ones defending the debate at this point on the board.

I think when we look at Chi Sim WCK we also cannot speak in the same terms such as "SLT".

I never do. I regard them as something different from WCK. JR

So I can only say at this point maybe the WCK that you have been exposed to does not reflect what you refer to as "Traditional numerology".

Perhaps you dont understand what I am saying! South fist (not eclectic versions) make use of 3, 18, 108 etc. as their form titles. Even the Okinwan arts make use of this. What I am saying is why do people feel WC does not make use of it? While the number three may be found in the WC art it is not thought of in the same way as the so-called south Shaolin.

As a matter of fact you will find that with both Chi sim and HFY the roots in Chan alone will place both systems identity well with in Shaolin.

I can see from reading the different histories that this is what is stated but just because someone says its Shaolin/Chan it does not mean one has to agree without hearing some stylistic, structural, etc. reasoning for the development/similarity. Yet! Once again! You guys are not the only ones who have claimed Shaolin over the years so it has nothing to do with your lineage but more the storiesinfo. out there.

Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered.

That would be the same for others theories/research.

I agree with your statement here however I have to say that we must first have enough information to make such calls.

I agree with you and this is why we have all been sharing and discussing different information regarding structural similarities, numerology, hard bow versus Yin Sun, forms patterns, etc. to come up with some links etc..

I can see where alot of assumptions are being made.

Everyone assumes lots of stuff and that is why we are all here to share info. and discuss information. That way we can find out some theories as to why, when, etc..

As a museum member I find that it is not a good idea to assume that just becuase we use the same words and even simular body positions (at first look) that we are speaking the same language. Becuase more often then not each system has a very different idea of what is being said.

Totally agree! That is why we are here to discuss and compare. Anyhow, thats all we can do on a discussion board.

I cannot say that without face to face interaction that I'm sure we are speaking the same language.

True but we are on a discussion board and we can all discuss our info..

I have even seen a few cases with face to face interaction the person still assumed he/she already knew what was being said and missed the entire point.

I see this a lot and with a lot of points.

So even with face to face the person has to be ready. I'm not saying that you're ready or not.

I am a very open person to loads of info/ways. Then I do my own homework with the info. I have recieved over the years. I dont always agree and sometimes others dont always agree with my thoughts. Thats the beauty of life.

I hope to maybe meet face to face and offer you interaction a experience as a better frame of reference. I hope this helps the thread along. good day gents!


I hope to meet someday. Get more info. and think more about it but for now we must use this board as our platform for discussion. Look forward to more chats.

BTW: I am not arguing with any lineage. I am not attacking any lineage. I dont care about lineage. To be honest! The lineage does not matter to me so please dont take this as a HFY or Jee Shim attack. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the age old belief about Shaolin or not. It has to do with the age old belief that WC was this quicky system rather than the long winded systems. It has to do with understanding how and why the arts went from a lead leg forward to slight pigeon toe not one in front. Etc. Etc. Etc.


Perhaps we can continue this discussion and share more thoughts and views now that the topic is open again. I will start the thread up agian as this thread is different going down the wrong road from its original topic of is Yik Kam the same Kam is Dai Kam etc.. Look forward to more chats!


Regards,

[tparkerkfo]

Hello Chango,

I don't think Jim is speaking for all wing chun. I think we all have a tendency to make apparently large claims, but in reality it is limited to our experience. Heck, even the masters can not speak of all wing chun. LOL.

In any case, I do not think wing chun came from shaolin for many reasons. When I say that, I mean fully intact or a majority of it. I have no doubt that there is SOME shaolin influence in it somewhere. Now, for Gee Shim and HFY. Those are different arts and as far as I am concerned, can come from shaolin 100%. I would not question that. Gee Shim is not the same as what I do. And if HFY claims them as a root, then that is fine. There are stories of other arts being on the red boats as well. I think Weng Chun is one. This, I beleive is a seperate distinct art than wing chun.

There are stories of Gee Shim teaching the long pole in wing chun as we know. But that is all. I think things are different in Weng Chun. Hung Gar also has stories about the Red Boats. In those stories it says he taught his Hung Kuen fist, which was not named that. He lowered the stances for the rocking boats and is said to have reduced mobility.

In any case, I just wanted to point out that I think these arts are from a seperate lineage any ways and when we speak of wing chun, we can not be speaking for HFY or Gee Shim any ways.

As far as SLT, I think Jim and I have seen numerous SLT/SNT many times over. I think we get the point of the form. I am not sure why HFY's SLT is any different as it is almost identical to TWC and very close to Yip Man's. Not much real difference in that Jim would be confused by it. I am not sure what you are using as a reference to Shaolin. Heck, no one knows what was taught there. Hung Kuen is considered by most to be VERY close to what was taught in shaolin. But were is the numerology? I think your assertion is a little biased and unfounded. Before we can say what is linked to shaolin, we must say what was in shaolin, which we just don't know. All we have is oral traditions, and if we use that, then we have to accept Hung Gar as a traditional Shaolin art. HFY does not look like Hung Gar. Wing Chun does not look like Hung Gar. Neither art promotes hung gar's theories or concepts. Can speak for Gee Shim since it is a different art anyways. But it does seem to have some connections.

You pointed out that some stuff may look alike but infact may not be. You and others have always said this. Why not take it a step further? Lets just say it is not even wing chun? Obviously you all think SLT is not the same. Chi Sau is not the same. Your legends are not the same. Your a die hard direct decendent from shaolin. Why not just take the step and remove yourself from wing chun? I am not seeing any thing that IS wing chun in your discussions, as every thing is different.

Tom

Tom
________
Silversurfer Vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com)

[taltos]

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
I am not sure why HFY's SLT is any different as it is almost identical to TWC and very close to Yip Man's.

As a clarification, HFY trains two different tracks at the initial level of the system. In HFYWC, SNT (Siu Nim Tau) refers to something completely different than SLT (Siu Lin Tau). SLT is not a form, so it seems that you are referring to your perceptions of SNT in your quote above.

In the current/upcoming (I am not sure if it in on shelves yet) Inside Kung Fu Magazine, there is an article that details the difference between SNT and SLT in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun.

I personally see a great difference in the focus of SNT and the way SNT is played between HFY, Yip Man, and TWC, because that has been my personal experience.

This was in no way intended to be disrespectful or confrontational. I am only trying to share what I know in a effort to make sure we are on the same page, and talking about the same thing.

Peace,

Levi

[desertwingchun2]

You pointed out that some stuff may look alike but infact may not be. You and others have always said this. Why not take it a step further? Lets just say it is not even wing chun? Obviously you all think SLT is not the same. Chi Sau is not the same. Your legends are not the same. Your a die hard direct decendent from shaolin. Why not just take the step and remove yourself from wing chun? I am not seeing any thing that IS wing chun in your discussions, as every thing is different. - Tom

Tom I understand your sarcasm but really no need. Let's start with SLT/SNT. Each has a different nature. When speaking in terms of a first form and training drills, they sound the same.

Regarding Chi Sao. I have seen where even within the same family definitions of Chi Sao differ. I can tell you that in HFY Wing Chun we are shown and learn the distinction of Kiu Sao and Chi Sao through a very logical progression.

To help you understand what is meant by terms like "stuff may look alike but infact may not be", it's akin to "go beyond shape and form". One thing I have learned, understanding is greatly improved when you know the nature of things.

Anytime someone talks about "one looks like", "this picture shows", "i saw this and ..." etc ... you are talking form. Understanding does not come from simple form.



Jim-

It has to do with the age old belief that WC was this quicky system rather than the long winded systems. It has to do with understanding how and why the arts went from a lead leg forward to slight pigeon toe not one in front. Etc. Etc. Etc.

We all know how subjective "belief" is. :)
I'm listening to your words. And I don't know if I've heard that learning the Wing Chun system is quick. In fact quite the opposite. However, I have heard that Wing Chun could be learned quickly. Therein lies the difference in SLT/SNT.

As for the when and why of training stances there are many many theories. IMO, being a conceptual and principle based system, while training the hands how much do the feet come into play? There are reminders of footwork in the first form. Thus, begins the progression of SLT/Chum Kiu/ Biu Jee. Each has it's identity and nature.

-David

[tparkerkfo]

Hi taltos,
I have not really followed HFY lately so a lot of this is new to me. Just a bit of background, I met a HFY guy who was involved for some time and considered him a good friend. He introduced me to Garret Gee and I had a wonderful talk with him. Latter I had the excellent fortune of meeting hiim yet again for a lot of discussions and info about HFY. Later I met some of HFY people from Bennys school and had a chance to see even more HFY.

ANyways, I am not sure the distinction between SLT and SNT. I find it a little odd that they would include both if they are both sets. I saw the set that was identical to TWC SLT. I typically use both terms intercangably as the L and N are reversable, though I realize they can refer to different diffinitions. So quickly, what is the set they do that is equal to TWC SLT so I can use the correct term. Also, you said you see huge differences between the various forms from different lineages. Would you care to go into that a bit? As they are all about identical in choreography, I tend to think the forms are all teaching the same thing. Just different teachers intrepret the forms differently. THough I won't offer a speculation on HFY as they seem unique in every thing.

Hi David,

I think we disscussed a few things before and had a good experience. I don't want to come off as a HFY basher cause I am not. I was one of the first people to defend it. Though I can say my attitude has changed significalntly after Benny became involved, though the reason was not because of him. Just noting the time frame. I resepct Gee sifu very much and I have had great extended talks with him. He once trusted me with information to share with the WCML a few years back. But I have seen a totaly different tone comming from that group for the last couple years. They seem to be making interesting claims. Yes there is a little sarcasm, but I mean most of what I say. Yes Chi Sau is different from lineage to lineage. However, Rene can rool with Hendrik and he can roll with me. There is no issue as it is all compatible and based on the same things. Our SLT/SNT are different, yet the same. But we are always being told the HFY is different. It very well may be. But if it is really different, then it can not be Wing Chun any longer. Atleast not the same wing chun.

This may sound inlfamitory, but I htink it solves a lot of problems. If we define Wing Chun as comming from a certain lineage and put HFY and Gee Shim outside that lineage, then things iron themselves out and we can be one big happy family. The forms and Chi Sau can be different, and the HFY people can stick to shaolin while we investigate other possiblilities for our wing chun.

I hope you don't take offesnse at this. I actually respect HFY and Garrett Gee. I have respect for Jeremy and several others as well. I consider them as close to friends as I can. I don't mean to upset you or to ruin any opertunity for discussion we may have in the future. But I do think many in the HFY are a bit blind by many things, as their are blind people in other wing chun families as well. In theend, I hope we all get what we want.

Tom

[reneritchie]

Hey Tom,

You're correct. To go a step further, when I met Hendrik, even though our respective lineages separated in the 1860s or so, and there's been very little contact since then, we could each very easily understand where the other was coming from. We could stick with the same platforms (several different ones), we could use similar poetic terms and understand each other, we could cross-reference similar conceptual language. Of course there were some differences and distinctions, there always are, but WCK was WCK.

The same thing happened with Jim Roselando and his Gulao Pien San, a lineage that split from the one I follow as well.

In the end, we're either WCK or not. So far, 3 separate, distinct branches from the Red Junk period retain the same core after almost 150 years. That can be dissembled, it can be ignored, it can be obfuscated, but it remains what is - tangible, repeatable, independantly verifiable.

(BTW - Gee sifu has always been a gentleman and great example when I've had the good fortune to speak with him. He always went out of his way not to disrespect other lineages or make any big claims. He also mentioned during the Friendship Seminar that, because some of his early students came from Yip Man backgrounds, he used Yip Man terms to help make the bridge for them. That might have filtered down and could be causing some of the confusion when people just try to compare names. I also had the chance to very briefly touch hands with him in Luk Sao while waiting in line at the restaurant, and he seemed to have *no* trouble with compatibility).

[taltos]

Hi tparkerkfo,

For the sake of simplicity (by no means comprehensive), here is a basic distinction:

SNT (Siu Nim Tau) includes, among other things, the form (the "choregraphed motions" if you will). That's what you play on your own, and that's what helps maintain the underlying principles and concepts (the theory, for lack of a better term).

SLT (Siu Lin Tau) includes the separate drills, each with their own levels of progression (much like the Chi Sau progression in most families in that it is just a sequential training/drilling tool for certain concepts). SLT is also the place where you interact with outside energies (i.e. a partner) to test your structures against live resistance and "prove" the system.

The main distinction here is that one can have the necessary physical attributes drilled into their bodies to be able to instinctually fight well without being able to teach another person with any degree of success or accuracy. This is true in much more than just Martial Arts. Good players are not necessarily good coaches. In HFY, SLT is required to be able to respond to a conflict, and SNT is required as an augmentation to SLT in order to be able to pass it on with any level of consistency.

I'm sure there are similar programs/methods in other families (i.e. practicioner vs. instructor and the considerations for each). HFY just gives each a separate name since the two have different aims.

The "choreography of movements" would be found in the SNT. That's where you start standing straight, open into YJKYM, etc. That is most likely what you feel is similar to TWC's "SLT."

Now I have never seriously studied TWC, so my opinion is only that, and there are many more people with much more experience in TWC than I, but here is my take on why I feel/see a difference. When I play the SNT, there are specific things I am focusing on. There are specific things that I am trying to reiterate to myself and train into my body. As an example, some include maintaining the WC Formula, calibrating my hands along three precise vertical reference points and five precise horizontal reference points, etc. If I watch the first form being played by a TWC practicioner, or a Yip Man practicioner, or any other family, (or when I myself play SNT in the Yip Man-based lineage I currently co-train in) I don't see/feel those things (among others) being consistently expressed and trained. If you (the impersonal you) are not passing through the same position in space, you are not training the same position in space. No offense, and no judgement, it's just not doing the same thing. I don't have any issue with that, and I don't make any validation decisions based on that, I just acknowledge that it's not training the same thing.

Please not that I have never said "better" or "best," merely "different." Whatever issues anyone may have with anyone else, I hope I am succeeding in just sharing my take on my training, without politics or ulterior motives. I may be walking into loaded questions, or I may not be. I'm just trying to share as best I can.

I'm glad to hear that you met Sitaigung Gee, and that you liked him. In the time I've been able to spend with him, I've found him to be a very personable and open man. I've never seen him be asked a question he didn't answer immidiately and honestly, and although the answer may not truly sink in until much later, he has always answered the EXACT question that was asked. I have to respect that kind of honesty.

Although you were speaking to David later in your post, I would like to add that I thik you are correct in that HFY is not the same Wing Chun (as perhaps others), but I think that is true of may things, and I hope that doesn't mean we can continue to be open and respectful to one another. I myself have enjoyed the conversation so far.

Rene,

Your description of Sitaigung Gee is dead on with my experience as well. He has always been very polite and non-political about lineages/families/etc. He is so passionate about WC that he simply does not seem to have the time for petty squabbling. Definately a good example.

-Levi

[desertwingchun2]

Hey Tom

Just to clear things up .... I said:

"Regarding Chi Sao. I have seen where even within the same family definitions of Chi Sao differ. I can tell you that in HFY Wing Chun we are shown and learn the distinction of Kiu Sao and Chi Sao through a very logical progression."- DWC2

You reply was:

Yes Chi Sau is different from lineage to lineage. However, Rene can rool with Hendrik and he can roll with me. There is no issue as it is all compatible and based on the same things. - Tom

As you see I never mentioned compatibility in the least. Where did that come from?

Our SLT/SNT are different, yet the same. But we are always being told the HFY is different. It very well may be. But if it is really different, then it can not be Wing Chun any longer. Atleast not the same wing chun. - Tom

I don't know what you were told so I don't know what differences were being referenced. Wing Chun is based on concepts and principles. Those should be expressed through the forms.

BTW - what is the "same" Wing Chun?

... but I htink it solves a lot of problems. If we define Wing Chun as comming from a certain lineage and put HFY and Gee Shim outside that lineage, then things iron themselves out and we can be one big happy family. The forms and Chi Sau can be different, and the HFY people can stick to shaolin while we investigate other possiblilities for our wing chun. - Tom

That's what you think ??!! LOL !!!

I hope you don't take offesnse at this.

Offense?? Not in the least. It's kind of like the ugly girl telling you not to ask her to prom!

I don't mean to upset you or to ruin any opertunity for discussion we may have in the future.

Tom, why would I get upset? To stick with the analogy, Me and the ugly girl can still pass notes in study hall.

-David

[yuanfen]

Tom sez-

This may sound inlfamitory, but I htink it solves a lot of problems. If we define Wing Chun as comming from a certain lineage and put HFY and Gee Shim outside that lineage, then things iron themselves out and we can be one big happy family. The forms and Chi Sau can be different, and the HFY people can stick to shaolin while we investigate other possiblilities for our wing chun.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about the happy family part- but not a bad idea Tom.
We keep going around in the same circles again and again.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Rene- Thanks for your words. I beleive those to be true. Either it is wing chun or it is not. People talk about how things modify, yet we have a fairly consistant group of wing chun that has been preserved fairly well. Only Pan Nam's seems very different and that is because he synthysized his system. Well, OK, there may be a couple others. Vilage styles of Hung Gar also have the same flavor, dispite differences in the forms. It would be interesting to see Hung Moon Hung Gar and see how it differs.

Hi Joy- Maybe not a happy family. LOL. But we can try! ; )

Levi-Thanks for the info. It helps. I wasn't aware of a distinction between SLT and SNT in HFY. I applaud your level headed response. Pardon me since I am use to knee jerk reactions and huge debates on every subject. I am semi new to this particular forum and maybe I am still carying some baggage. I hope real discussions like this are the norm! I am not setting you up or playing politics, though at least one person may think so. You can make up your own mind though.

Hi David- my reference to chi sau was not a direct reflection of your comments, but was motivated by what you said. Many times I have been told, or read where others were told the HFY is different than YM and others. You mentioned that the definition differs and while it may at the macro level, we all feel it is the same. Sorry if I took my comments to far. LOL. I may be carrying some bagage as I wrote above.

When I said, "not the same wing chun" , I meant that if you are not adhearing to the principles, it is no longer wing chun. If it calls it self wing chun but still breaks the principles, then it is not the same wing chun. It is just called the same name. This would go for some one who doesn't posses good wing chun skills, or an art that actually violates the wing chun principles. I have found that a name alone doesn't make the are so. There are atleast 2 Bak mei styles if not more. There are 2 Hung Kuen styles, if not more. There apears to be 2 Lau Gar styles, if not more. Many other styles may also exist with similar names that are not the same. Weng Chun and Wing Chun are often confused. My point was only that wing chun among most families are all the same. This even includes Pan Nam's which is quite different. But if it doesn't hold to the same principles, it is no longer wing chun. At least that is my opinion. So when some one tells me they don't hold to these principles or that it is not the same, then I have no choice but to consider it something else with a similar name.

Also, I don't mind being the ugly girl from time to time. LOL. I am glad we can discuss with out stepping on toes. With people like you and Levi, I can warm back up to HFY! All I ask is level headed discussion and reasonablility that seems to allude some. Thanks for the discussion and I hope it continues to go well.
________
VAPIR NO2 (http://no2vaporizers.com)

[taltos]

Tom,

No worries! This is a good discussion. When a group of people can share information openly and respectfully, whether they ultimately agree or disagree is a moot point. Since no one is trying to "jockey for position," there are no toes available to step on!

Well, my weekend is here, so I will see you all on Monday.

-Levi

[Chango]

Hello gentlemen,
Allow me to first apologize for the delay in response. My PC is not doing so well right now.

Hello Jim,
I hope in the future more can be revealed to you in a more suitable format. I understand why you have your point of view on the origins WCK. I would have to admit that with out certian experiences and understandings it can be hard to see where the Chi Sim and HFY identity transends style. Of course this would be far beyond something that we can cover via the internet. I can only say I hope to see you around and no offense is taken by your point of view. I have to say that the Shaolin systems such as HFY and Chi Sim themselves offer themselves as the artifacts that will draw it all together for you as it did for me and others. I would challenge those who have thier doubts to learn atleast first few levels of information from these systems!(with an empty cup of course) I think the systems will speak for themselves. For those that have no interest in taking me up on this challenge. I can only say that there is a certian freedom in fau kiu (wandering) So I have no emotional attachment to those who choose to enjoy this freedom. I can only say that I have moved beyond that point and cannot enjoy such freedoms. Once you move beyond this point there is simply no going back! No matter what the attachment, like,dislike,lineage in question. It is not that I refuse to go back to fau kiu I simply can not do it. (Hello Tom good to hear from you) I'm sorry if this offends but this is the case.


Chango (saat geng sau)

[Chango]

Hello gentlemen,
Allow me to first apologize for the delay in my responses. My PC is not doing so well right now.

Hello Jim,
I hope in the future more can be revealed to you in a more suitable format. I understand why you have your point of view on the origins WCK. I would have to admit that with out certian experiences and understandings it can be hard to see where the Chi Sim and HFY identity transends style. Of course this would be far beyond something that we can cover via the internet. I can only say I hope to see you around and no offense is taken by your point of view. I have to say that the Shaolin systems such as HFY and Chi Sim themselves offer themselves as the artifacts that will draw it all together for you as it did for me and others. I would challenge those who have thier doubts to learn atleast first few levels of information from these systems!(with an empty cup of course) I think the systems will speak for themselves. For those that have no interest in taking me up on this challenge. I can only say that there is a certian freedom in fau kiu (wandering) So I have no emotional attachment to those who choose to enjoy this freedom. I can only say that I have moved beyond that point and cannot enjoy such freedoms. Once you move beyond this point there is simply no going back! No matter what the attachment, like,dislike,lineage in question. It is not that I refuse to go back to fau kiu I simply can not do it. (Hello Tom good to hear from you) I'm sorry if this offends but this is the case.


Chango (saat geng sau)

[yuanfen]

Chango sez:I hope in the future more can be revealed to you in a more suitable format. I understand why you have your point of view on the origins WCK. I would have to admit that with out certian experiences and understandings it can be hard to see where the Chi Sim and HFY identity transends style.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meditation on inner meanings?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Chango,

Wow, I have gotten or read several posts that shocked me. It is good to see good discussions without ad hominen attacks and such. Yes I think we all have different view points on the origin of wing chun. And I personally think that is healthy as it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket. At least on the collective whole. It is good to look into different perspectives. One of the quotes I love is from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data". In many cases this happens a lot. I admit much of my theories are based on instinct and what seems to make sense. But that is why I try to be open. I would love to see more data and I can not wait to get a hold of some.

Anyways, I myself study a shaolin system, which is also directly linked to Gee Shim. I can honestly say that I don't think it draws things together. Atleast not in the way that has been presented in the past couple years. The more I learn of Wing Chun and Hung Gar, the more I think they are NOT related. However this doesn't mean I am blind, I do see some inconsistencies in my position, which makes me uncomfortable. There are SOME things that ARE similar between the styles. But know one seems to focus on those aspects. Instead they point to silly things like YJKYM (which came from outside of Hung Gar), begining of Tiger and Crane (which was not even around yet), the Butterfly Knives and pole (which almost all southern arts have), Bong Sau (also common in southern arts), and the crane techniques (which were introduced later to Hung Kuen). Power generation is not the same between both arts. The principles are very different. Hung Gar seems to have maintained the flavor, if not the choreography, of the early teachings. Wing Chun has maintained most of its teachings intact. Yet they both are very different. The principles are not the same, nor are the concepts. Hung Gar seems similar to other Shaolin styles I have seen. They use the same basics. All shaolin styles retain these. Wing Chun seems closer to white crane, Bak Mei, Leung Ying, mantis, and other Hakka arts. Triangular footwork, Narrow stances, explosive short power, elbows down and inside the body frame, compact body, triangluar footwork, power from the body rather than the shoulders. All shaolin styles maintain a salute, which wing chun seems to ignore, except for those that personally do it, and another branch that I know of.

Then there is the fact that Wing Chun seems to ignore wing chun coming from Jee Shim. Most branches credit Ng Mui (who has ties to Ermei). The hands are all distinctive, which comes from Ng Mui. Jee Shims role is limited to the Pole form, which is the one part that does seem Hung Gar like both in application and practice. This is were our horse comes from. Amazing how well preserved this little are is. Few have "modified" it to fit in with the rest of wing chun. It is a bit of a contradiction of sorts. To me, this is important.

I am also confused why there are no records of the southern temple, especially since it is so important. They exist for the northern one. Why do the Hung Muen list different survivors? Why are there so many different accounts of the shaolin story that don't coincide? Were their 5 survivors or a lot? Why is the northern temple stories confused with the southern? The stories seem to overlap? Who was at which temple? Jee Shim is said to have fled the northern one, then the southern one after a fire at both? But the stories put the fires over 100 years apart. Hung Gar story reveals that Gee Shim's primary student was Hung Hei Gwoon. He received the bulk of Gee Shim's training (which was tiger based, and did not include crane). He had relateivly little time on the red boats, which may explain the pole connection.

In one artical it was mentioned that Cheung Ng could not have been a beggar because the sophisticated opera members would not have have respected the skills of such a lowly person. Well, by all accounts, Jee Shim was a lowly person. In the wing chun fables he was hiding as a mere cook. Why would the sophisticated opera members then respect him if they were bound not to be able to respect Cheung Ng, if he was a beggar?

Dispite all of this, it doesn't prove much, I admit. These are a handful of the factors that make me question everything I have heard so far from all sides. When I practice Hung Gar, I often see something wing chunnish and I start to doubt my own thinking as well. There could be logical explinations and what not. But I have not seen them.

As for your challenge, I think I exposed myself to HFY before you were involved with it. Benny was not yet part of the system if I recall correctly. I discussed many things with Gee sifu. He is very sure of his teachings and is very confident. But that doesn't make it so. In any case, much of the information I have heard posted was never reveled to me, just a part of it. But he did go into the theory ind detail. But I can not say that there really is any thing unique. Everything I have seen and heard, is the same as other wing chun. Just some of the terminology is different. Time and space? I have that in my wing chun. I also have it in my hung gar. I think it is esential in ANY fighting art. Nothing unique. So, I have went the path of your challenge. To go any further would be to actually study under Gee sifu. And since I can not do so, it wont happen.

I don't mean to sound hostile, that is not my intent. I am just laying down most of my cards so you and others can see my cards and where I am comming from. I would love to discuss any and all these issues in a respectful manner. Maybe you can help sort some of it out.

Anyways, thanks for being level headed.

Tom

[Geezer]

From what I've been reading regarding the non-political stance taken by the Ghee Hin Secret Society in Singapore, how do you think this affected the Wing Chun Kuen that came out of Malaysia???
It seems that they were not so interested in the the political aim of overthrowing the Qing and restoring the Ming dynasty in China.

Sheldon

[Chango]

Tom,
I think you missed my point I said that you need to learn " the first few levels" of Chi sim Weng chun and HFY. Not Hung ga I'm not speaking on Hung ga that is a entire different subject.


<snip> Anyways, I myself study a shaolin system, which is also directly linked to Gee Shim. I can honestly say that I don't think it draws things together. Atleast not in the way that has been presented in the past couple years. The more I learn of Wing Chun and Hung Gar, the more I think they are NOT related. However this doesn't mean I am blind, I do see some inconsistencies in my position, which makes me uncomfortable. There are SOME things that ARE similar between the styles. But know one seems to focus on those aspects. Instead they point to silly things like YJKYM (which came from outside of Hung Gar), begining of Tiger and Crane (which was not even around yet), the Butterfly Knives and pole (which almost all southern arts have), Bong Sau (also common in southern arts), and the crane techniques (which were introduced later to Hung Kuen). Power generation is not the same between both arts. The principles are very different. Hung Gar seems to have maintained the flavor, if not the choreography, of the early teachings. Wing Chun has maintained most of its teachings intact. Yet they both are very different. The principles are not the same, nor are the concepts. Hung Gar seems similar to other Shaolin styles I have seen. They use the same basics. All shaolin styles retain these. Wing Chun seems closer to white crane, Bak Mei, Leung Ying, mantis, and other Hakka arts. Triangular footwork, Narrow stances, explosive short power, elbows down and inside the body frame, compact body, triangluar footwork, power from the body rather than the shoulders. All shaolin styles maintain a salute, which wing chun seems to ignore, except for those that personally do it, and another branch that I know of.

**read above message Do you know the HFY formula? if not I'm sorry but you don't have the first level of HFY.


<snip>Then there is the fact that Wing Chun seems to ignore wing chun coming from Jee Shim. Most branches credit Ng Mui (who has ties to Ermei). The hands are all distinctive, which comes from Ng Mui. Jee Shims role is limited to the Pole form, which is the one part that does seem Hung Gar like both in application and practice. This is were our horse comes from. Amazing how well preserved this little are is. Few have "modified" it to fit in with the rest of wing chun. It is a bit of a contradiction of sorts. To me, this is important.

***once again proving that you do not have the first level of understanding in HFY. Nothing personal it's just very clear that you do not have an understanding of the foot work in HFY.


<snip> I am also confused why there are no records of the southern temple, especially since it is so important. They exist for the northern one. Why do the Hung Muen list different survivors? Why are there so many different accounts of the shaolin story that don't coincide? Were their 5 survivors or a lot? Why is the northern temple stories confused with the southern? The stories seem to overlap? Who was at which temple? Jee Shim is said to have fled the northern one, then the southern one after a fire at both? But the stories put the fires over 100 years apart. Hung Gar story reveals that Gee Shim's primary student was Hung Hei Gwoon. He received the bulk of Gee Shim's training (which was tiger based, and did not include crane). He had relateivly little time on the red boats, which may explain the pole connection.

****wasn't there and article (Independant of the VTM) on the discovery of the site of the southern shoulin temple? Wasn't there a post on the VTM visiting this sight? Didn't the VTM members post on this very forum about an up coming report or article on this visit. I think you will be very impressed with what the few remaining original structures! Tom if you have questions like these please pay closer attention to like discussions. you might want to look further in the Chi sim WCk information for possible answers to your questions on Chi sim. I think you will be pleasently suprised.


<snip>In one artical it was mentioned that Cheung Ng could not have been a beggar because the sophisticated opera members would not have have respected the skills of such a lowly person. Well, by all accounts, Jee Shim was a lowly person. In the wing chun fables he was hiding as a mere cook. Why would the sophisticated opera members then respect him if they were bound not to be able to respect Cheung Ng, if he was a beggar?

***Tom first I will say that you really should remember that Chi sim was underground as a cook only revealing his skills when threatened. But once his skill had been revealed he then gained the respect beyond what is normally paid to a "mere cook".

***I will address translation of "Tan Sau" as simple as I can. Hummm You have Cheung Ng noted for his skill and martial skill and listed in the family of WCK. WCK an art that uses a technique called Tan sau.Being more specific in HFY this is the technique used to introduce Proper time and space according to maximum efficency. Hummm Cheung Ng was known to be active in Opera activity.Noted by non-martial arts historians but opera historians. WCK has very strong links to the opera. with out going into depth I can say at first look it is pretty clear that the translation does not mean cripple hand. Once again that cripple hand bit came from an assuption in a magazine article and no other sources of historic value. From that a few took that translation and ran with it. Maybe those people would like to point out where things point to this meaning "cripple hand".


<snip>As for your challenge, I think I exposed myself to HFY before you were involved with it. Benny was not yet part of the system if I recall correctly.

***this tells us nothing on the depth of understanding that you have. So you found it first. But if you do not recognize it for what it is. When you found it means nothing.

<snip> I discussed many things with Gee sifu. He is very sure of his teachings and is very confident. But that doesn't make it so. In any case, much of the information I have heard posted was never reveled to me, just a part of it. But he did go into the theory ind detail.

***Of course Sigung's confidence does not make it true.but putting it to the test is what makes it true. once you have done this you have that same confidence. True confidence can only be drived from true knowlege! I have put every thing I have learned in HFY to the test and I can say that it always withstands all test.


<snip>But I can not say that there really is any thing unique. Everything I have seen and heard, is the same as other wing chun. Just some of the terminology is different. Time and space? I have that in my wing chun. I also have it in my hung gar. I think it is esential in ANY fighting art

*** Time and space are a constant Tom however you forgot to test your time and space against "maximum efficency" So you can have all of the time and space you want with your system be it Hung ga, Wing chun, Tom kwon do or Tom P. Chaun LOL! or what ever. But if you have the proper time and space according to maximum efficiency then you have HFY. There is only one "maximum efficiency" if you add to it or take away from it you loose the proper time and space. At that point you cannot be doing HFY. Tom we haven't even beging to discuss energy.

<snip> Nothing unique. So, I have went the path of your challenge. To go any further would be to actually study under Gee sifu. And since I can not do so, it wont happen.

***Tom Nothing unique? that only shows that you do not understand what has been presented to you. "Maximum efficency" alone by definition would mean there can only be one. so I would have to say unique indeed. Maybe you should go back and re-examine your experiences with my Sigung it seems you have missed quite a bit of the point. Hey you may not be ready for this information. Maybe it isn't for you. However I know I could use maximum efficency and true time and space. It's nothing personal it may not be for you.


<snip>I don't mean to sound hostile, that is not my intent. I am just laying down most of my cards so you and others can see my cards and where I am comming from. I would love to discuss any and all these issues in a respectful manner. Maybe you can help sort some of it out.

Anyways, thanks for being level headed.

Tom

***No I did not take it as being hostile. I honestly feel that you are confused. I do not mean it as an insult when I say that you probrably did not grasp all that was offered to you. I want you to reread read my challenge it is not in regards to Hung ga. My reference to Chi sim is to Chi sim weng chun. If we are discussing Hung ga we are not being precise in regards to my challenge. My challenge is based on these two very precise systems. I still maintain that I have yet to see a qualified conclusion that is in disagreement with link of these two systems to each other or to Chan.I don't mean this as an attack or to say if you disagree your are wrong. No I'm saying that I have yet to be impressed with the level of information on HFY by those who have dissagreed thus far. To discuss HFY with out understanding of the formula and it's application. Is to not have a discussion on HFY at all. So it is not enough just to know the formula but to have an understanding of it. With this understanding one can have a "trained eye". So to the untrained eye many things may look "exactly" like HFY but to the trained eye HFY is distinct and one of a kind. I hope you understand what I'm saying here.

Saat geng sau!!!!!!!:cool:

[canglong]

"Dispite all of this, it doesn't prove much, I admit. These are a handful of the factors that make me question everything I have heard so far from all sides. When I practice Hung Gar, I often see something wing chunnish and I start to doubt my own thinking as well. There could be logical explinations and what not. But I have not seen them. " Tom

LOL, that was good and genuine thanks for the light reading. I am left wondering then what is the most revealing factor that directs your leaning the way in which you are leaning in all of this?

[hunt1]

Jee Shim didnt not exist so to put forward a argument or lineage claims stemming from him proves nothing or less than nothing. I have posted several times the research done in China by Chinese Historians on Southern Martial Arts and the I.S.D.N. number of the book this group of over 100 historians published.

Many figures in Martial Tales did actually exist and records of them have been found in China. No historical record of jee Shim or anyone like Jee Shim has ever been found. Tracing your roots to a made up name and saying there is my proof for my system shows only a good imagination by the true founders whoever they may be.

[yuanfen]

Chango sez:

*** Time and space are a constant
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------There goes the theory of relativity
of time and space!!!

[reneritchie]

Time and space are illusionarily (that's not a word, but my use of it here underlines its appropriateness) constant at the human fractal scale. At larger scales, the relativity of time and space are more apparent, while at smaller scales the uncertainty is more clear. My travels on an airplane don't *really* make me younger, and my molecules jumping around doesn't *really* let me teleport, so I typically ignore those factors in day to day life.

However, one can't expect an apocryphal 17th century temple to have more sophisticated paradigm shifts than Einstein or Heisenberg, so I guess that makes sense (though perhaps Ferman will show up later.)

I think more to the point, however, is that it doesn't matter in the real world. In the lab, in writing, precision analysis can be useful. In life, there is seldom the time in which to measure the space, and seldom the space in which to take the time.

If I give you a ball and tell you to throw it at a bottle some 10 feet away, certainly there are precise measurements you could take to achieve a complete time/space understanding of yourself and the ball relative to the bottle, and perhaps that might help you (perhaps not). However, if I put a linebacker beside you, and tell him to tackle at the sound of the same whistle you're supposed to start throwing at... well, your choice if you want to measure or not.

Pure and applied physicists aren't typically world champion pool players or boxers, though they certainly understand formulae far better than the champs. What the champs have, what every human has, is the "fuzzy logic" to get close enough without having to waste time measuring or needless complicate things with formulae. Not needed for bulding a house, where you take your time to get it perfect, but vital for "on-the-fly" dynamics like fighting.

BTW- Chango, nice to see you posting. Hope everything is well.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Chango and others.

Thanks for responding. You asked people to take up your challenge and look into HFY. I answered that I have. You don't like the level of knowledge I have and suggest more. I don't think that is an option unless I sign up and spend years studying it. I saw NOTHING that radically changed my impressions. I thought the ideas and methods seemed sound. But to be honest, I saw nothing that amazed me. To this day, there has only been 1 person that simply amazed me. I don't expect you to understand.

Time and space. Your telling me that HFY has some sort of LOCK on being in the correct time and space? That only HFY can develop this? I think you swallowed the hook, line, and sinker. Time and Space theory did not exist prior to the 1900's. Gee sifu is a very smart and intellegent guy. That is his theory put into an analogy, IMNSHO. No wing chun will work without proper time and space as it has been discribed. There is ONLY one time to deliver a technique that covers one space. If it is not correct, then it is easily broken. However, there are many paths you can take. I suggest that you look into better wing chun and you will see others DO have it. I am a little disheartened to hear that you think all wing chun is lacking. It just shows how little knowledge you have.

Hung Ga is just something I can use to add to this discussion since there seems to be many inthe wing chun circles that is using bits and pieces of their story to support wing chun history. If you speak of shaolin and Gee Shim, then Hung Gar must be discussed as other arts. I myself beleive the two arts are seperate and only stories link them. But I could be wrong. And Yes Gee Shim is said to be a cook. And he taught his version of Shaolin on the red boats, which was Hung Gar before all the additions. Wing Chun only credits the POLE from to him, and it seems pretty well preserved with the flavor of Hung Gar. The hands are very different. No other wing chun points to him other than Gee Shim and HFY. HFY can not be verified beyond Gee sifu. Gee Shim may not be pure wing chun directly connected to us. We may have some connections since both seemed to be practiced on the red boats. My point is that Weng Chun may indeed have been passed on by Gee Shim at the same time as Hung Gar, or more than likely, he taught the Weng Chun folks. Maybe. I'll buy that. But I don't think Gee Shim is our direct ancestor. HFY looks like Yip Man and "Traditional" wing chun, but we are told it is "TOTALLY" Different. If it is, then I don't beleive it is wing chun and comes from a different source that MAY have some overlap. But I don't yet buy the theory. Not yet atleast. Not saying it is fake or anything, I just don't think that the data is in yet.

Tan Sau Ng. He is a historical figure. He was known to have had trouble with the government. THe funny thing is, he was almost unknown to martial artists until Pan Nam spoke of him. He was well known as a Opera person. But there is NO mention of his martial skill from what I have been told. I wait to stand corrected. So he had a name "Tan Sau" Ng. What does that mean? Does it mean he was Wing Chun! How about the other way around. I don't think some one really looked at a crane and said he, I am going to incorporate that technique! I think they discovered a technique and some one said, hey, that looks like a crane wing. Perhaps, just perhaps, the opera members knew of Ng's hand and noticed that the "tan Sau" technique reminded them of Tan Sau Ng. Perhaps they named the technique after him. But in any case, there is no record of Cheung Ng being a martial artist, but there are accounts of him. His background and activities as being in trouble was known. Why would his name be lost in all of wing chun but kept by HFY only?


As to your specific comments.

I don't have a deep level of knowledge of HFY. I know about as much as can be expected from meeting Garret Gee and talking to several people. Limited yes. But I made the effort. Nothing shocked me and left that big of an impression on me. Ken is still the only person that left an incredible impression on me.

Are you saying that HFY maintains a horse like Hung Kuen?

I am recently new to this forum so I missed many good topics. Yes there are several articals that abound. I had a minor discussion with Gene on this topic and I he pointed out a couple articals that might be what you spoke of. There is one or two comming up. I recommended that he try to publish a good artical, or series that would debate the issue with real scholars. I have not seen much of the newer info, but what I have seen has been highly skeptical and not all people involved agreed that the remains were Shaolin. Anyways, I would love to see more and eat my words. Personally, I would love if the southern shaolin story is true. It is quite a story and I am not opposed to it at all. I just don't see the evidence as clear as others. Some makes sense, and others don't. It is far from a complete story in either case.

If HFY can withstand all tests, and is infallible if applied properly, which all the articals I read say, then I would expect to see it dominate in the UFC and other such events. LOL. You have all the self references to measure that is the equivelant of modern radar, you have time and space. HFY can only be done one way, the right way. If all this is true, I would expect you guys to be able to dominate EVERY level of compitition from challenge matches and UFC type events to simple rolling and friendship and seminar settings. Can you guys dominate every one else? The true test is in the hands. You say that it stands up to every test. Does it stand up to others hands? All others? Are you sure about that? That is quite a claim.

There is no such thing as effecient time and space. Either your timing is on or it is off. Either it works or it doesn't. There isnothing specail in the HFY method. This is smoke and mirrors. Any one with a good level of wing chun can do the exact same thing as HFY. There was an artical that was written by Benny that discribed the time and space concept. Either he failed miserably at discribing it, or we all have the same thing, if we are any good. There was nothing unique about it. To bad you could spend several hours with my sifu like I did yours inorder to really see the difference. Then you could see you good time and space hold up. Not to disrespect your ideas, but I think it is baloney as stated. I know what I am being taught is good. But I know it is up to me to use it correctly. It won't hold up to your sifu. I know that and am comfortable with it. but your telling me that you guys do some sort of magicical super secret methods that are infallible. I say there is nothing unique and it wont hold up like you guys think to good wing chun. It may be good, not denying that at all. The theories probably work well too. Not saying they don't. I don't take what you said to personal. Maybe I don't get it. But what you are saying is hillarious in that you honestly beleive that your art is perfection. If that is true, you would have absolutly no problem being the king of gor sau. But that reminds of the old saying, what happens when an imoveable object meets an unstoppible one? By that I mean, what happens when two HFY people meet who have "perfect" use of time and space and other tools? I assume there is still room for error. If their is, then why all the fuss over the theory as being perfect and such as it can still fail in the hands of mere mortals?

I did not take your challenge to include Hung Ga. I went and say HFY. That was your challenge, no? Well I did that. I did not sign p however. Wasn't your challenge to see it for your self, thinkiing we would see the light and sign up? Well I did see it and now your saying that I am confused and obviously didn't get it. Nope that is not it. I saw Ken's methods and you know what, I signed up immediatly. I am using hung gar because it has the connections to chan and to gee shim and to shaolin and to the red boats and to many things. If you talk about these things, then you must include Hung Gar. A few years ago, you guys were bringing up hung gar. I now study it and I don't see the connection to wing chun. I don't know Chi Shim wing chun and have never seen it, so I can not comment on that. Your HFY doesn;t look like hung gar at all. Where are the hung Gar principles? Where is a connection in what was done?

Anyways, I don't want this to turn ugly or personal. I'll accept being "confused" LOL. I admit I am. I am sure I'll met some more HFY people in the future and I would love to see what is truely unique and special about HFY. I have no beef with you guys, but I have problems with some comments as it doesn't make sense to me.

Tom
________
Oregon Dispensary (http://oregon.dispensaries.org/)

[Geezer]

Rene do you have any information regarding this, ‘A Record of the Xilu Incident’ and the Shaolin Monk involvment?????

Sheldon

[desertwingchun2]

Hi Tom - Got a note to pass ya. LOL :D (actually it really was just an analogy)

Time and Space theory did not exist prior to the 1900's.

Which theory are you speaking on?

There is no such thing as effecient time and space.

I agree with you here. Time and space are time and space. However, there are ways more efficient than others to operate within these dimensions. What's your thoughts?

Either your timing is on or it is off.

Time and timing are seperate issues. It took me a while to understand the distinction but when I did things became a lot more clear !!!

There is nothing specail in the HFY method. This is smoke and mirrors.

I have been looking for the man behind the curtain and haven't found him yet! Actually the meathod teaches how to recognize smoke and mirrors. By recognizing and addressing them you begin to talk about efficiency and the such.

.... then why all the fuss over the theory as being perfect and such as it can still fail in the hands of mere mortals?

LOL !!! In so much as I have been exposed to the theories are solid. But like you said the person has to express the theory. And everyone knows about the human factor in things. Has anyone claimed that once you learn HFYWC you become superman??? I don't think so. I think assertions like that come from others and are born of frustration and lack of understanding.

Good talkin with you Tom,

-David

[tparkerkfo]

Hi David,

I don't think I can argue with any of your comments. They seem resonable here.

Time and timing are integrated, no? If I apply the correct technique at the correct position (space) at the correct time (timing), then .... is something I have seen posted many times. Atleast this is a summing up of it. In this case as I have read it in other places, it is all the same. Time and timing are integrated as it means being at the right place at the right time. This could be a powerful statement, but I think it is also trivial in that it is obvious. Having correct structure is always importnant and something that Leung Sheung has demanded for a while, and which his lineage has posted on for years. Space is simply structure. No biggie. Got that. Time. I call that sensitivity and centerline theory. You are automatically using correct timing since your inplace at the correct time. I feel my teacher is the fastest person I met. But it is not speed related, it is effeciency by being in the right place at the right time. No magic there, nothing special except good practice and adhearance to the Kuen Kuits.

I don't have a problem with HFY principles persay. I think there methods are probably sound. That is not the smoke and mirrors I was talking about. I think the smoke and mirrors is in the hyperbole about the methods. I have not seen anything radically different in HFY, yet it has been discribed as different. Of course I am now "confused" and didn't really understand it. That is OK.

Could you start a seperate thread and discuss why time and space is different from what I and others are doing. Perhaps it really is and I am confused.

As far as the superman thing, I agree and no, no one has claimed it directly. However, all the articals speak to it and how the theories are perfect and infallible. But if that is true, then it should translate to the human factor, which I can not say if it has or has not. Gee is GOOD. But I did not feel the same things from his students, though many were still new and we didn't really work out that way, so I am not judging from those experiences.

Thanks for your reply
Tom (still confused)
________
Weed Vaporizers (http://weedvaporizers.org/)

[Rolling_Hand]

There is nothing specail in the HFY method. This is smoke and mirrors.--Tom

I have been looking for the man behind the curtain and haven't found him yet! Actually the meathod teaches how to recognize smoke and mirrors. By recognizing and addressing them you begin to talk about efficiency and the such.--David

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

Tom,

The strategists have the sayings: 'When you doubt your ability to meet the enemy's attack, take the offensive yourself', and 'if you doubt your ability to advance an inch, then retreat a foot'.

In the morning of Tao, for the further one travels, the less one knows!

David,

The wind cannot shake a mountain. Neither praise nor blame moves the wise man. The wise man delights in the truth and follows the law of the awakened. David....you're there!

[reneritchie]

Hi Sheldon,

Probably over a year ago I recommended a few books to. One of those books, Origins of the Tiandihui by Murray, has 4 or 5 versions of the Xilu creation myth. I still recommend you get the book and give it a good read, if your questions are sincere, it and the rest will answer many of them for you.

In a nutshell, the Xilu creation myth was something that the Triads came up with to help firm up their membership. They took various Tang dynasty accounts of Henan Shaolin, and came up with a story where the Shaolin monks helped the Qing Dynasty supress a rebellion of the Xilu (Western Barbarians, generally taken to be the Tibetains, from which stems the Shaolin vs. Lama movie legacy). The Shaolin ended the Xilu revolt and thus gained the favor of the Qing and were given gifts, etc. This caused resentment among the Qing court, who turned the emperor against the Shaolin, and ultimately caused the Shaolin Temple to be burned and the 5 Elders to flee. These elders then formed the Heaven & Earth Society, or Hung League, to revolt against the Qing (this is where the saying "Fan Qing Fu Ming" was supposed to originate within the Red Flood Pavillion).

There are many versions, from the simple to the magically fantastic. In the early 1900s, Sun Yat-Sen ordered the National Historians to assemble them into a working history he could use to convince the overseas Triads that they had nationalistic roots, and thus gain their support to lead the country. The historians couldn't really succeed, of course, because even in this origin, the Shaolin, and hence the rebellion wasn't patriotic, it was vengeful. They *helped* the Qing, and only fought them when the Qing turned against them. However, due to the immigration of the time, these were the stories first taught to most Westerners, absent history lost during the Opium Wars, the Red Turban Revolt, the Boxer Rebellion, etc. the fables and old pulp novels were all that were left, and so they spread.

[Geezer]

Yes my question was sincere, and yes I do remember you referencing those books to me on more than one occasion;)but havn't got round to looking into them. I had some notes, and this was mentioned in it, I'm at the moment typeing into 'word' so I can transfer it over here but it's 15 pages long and seeing as I'm not the greatest at typeing it's taking an hour a page. It references about 11 diffrent sources,

"To take the case of the Songshan Shaolin Monastery first, in what circumstances did it burn down? According to the annals of the Hung League (Hongmen) and the Heaven and Earth Society (Tiandi Hui), the seeds of the catastrophe were sown when Shaolin monks helped the Qing court to conquer invading forces from 'Xilu'. One account of the victory over the invaders from 'Xilu' (another gives 'Xinzang or Tibet )can be found in the British musuems manuscript copy of the Annals of the Heaven and Earth Society, in an essay entitled 'A Record of the Xilu Incident' "

" ' A Record of the Xilu Incident' was the first item of Heaven and Earth Society literature to be discovered and it has a high degree of credibilty . Moreover there is historical evidence that Shaolin monks had aided the government in crushing foreign invaders long before the Qing Dynasty'."

It makes reference to the possibilty that 'Xilu' is in fact Russia????

Anyway I will post it here in a couple of days when it's retyped in to 'word'.

"Saffron robes stained with blood and tears/Billowed in the ill winds from Xilu".

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

Sheldon,

LOL! It was "highly credible" about 100 years ago! The old Europeans really ate them up! LOL! "Xilu" creation myths, however, have been debunked by just about every modern scholar.

Posting that kind of stuff here is equivalent to finding an old text that discusses phlogistron and going on a chemistry board to tell everyone it's *highly factual*.

[Geezer]

Hey.......I'm two pages down I may as well carry on;)


Sheldon

[desertwingchun2]

Hey Tom,

I don't think I can argue with any of your comments. They seem resonable here.

Um ... Ok.

Time and timing are integrated, no?

Not in the sense you are expressing here " ... the correct time (timing)"


Space is simply structure.

Can you explain what you mean here? I don't think I understand.

Time. I call that sensitivity and centerline theory. You are automatically using correct timing since your inplace at the correct time.

mmmm .... not the same as what understand time to be.

I have not seen anything radically different in HFY, yet it has been discribed as different. Of course I am now "confused" and didn't really understand it. That is OK.

I can see you don't understand. It is ok! At least you recognize you don't understand and that says alot!

Could you start a seperate thread and discuss why time and space is different from what I and others are doing.

I would love to but:
1) In the past these threads have degenerated very quickly
2) I don't know what "others" are doing and wouldn't speak for them

The best I can do is contribute my two cents as I'm doing here.

However, all the articals speak to it and how the theories are perfect and infallible. But if that is true, then it should translate to the human factor, which I can not say if it has or has not.

The human factor is the human factor. It reminds me of these plants that people tell me won't die if I just keep them watered. Well guess what, I don't have very many plants! :)

Gee is GOOD

I would venture to say that Master Gee has mad skills !!

Talk with you later,

-David

[tparkerkfo]

Hi David and others,

First let me discuss Time and Space term as I think it leds to undue confusion. This seems to be a term that has some ties to the physics world in order to lend credibility to the theory used by HFY. Space and time were united in some theories early in the 1900?s. I am not going to embarrass myself by showing my lack of knowledge on the subject; others can go into the details in much better detail. If there is no connection between the HFY and Physics concept, then it seems the separation on HFY?s part is not very good. It seems to want to be tied to this concept. As such, I say that this is a new theory that HFY could not have had prior to the 1900?s.

By time and space, I assume that we are speaking of time as in a measurement between two occurrences of something. I think that is the only real definition of time. By space I would think you mean the mass an object is made up of and the space it takes up. A mass can be defined by the space it occupies at a precise time. And/or, we could be talking about the space as in distance between two objects. The science crowd will probably shudder at my definitions, but so be it. In martial arts, we want to stop a mass at a specific time by blocking it or moving out of the way. I am not sure of any other way of defining space and time related to martial arts.

Yes I admit I don?t know much about HFY. I only know what I was exposed to in person, what certain people on the net bring up, and what I read in articles. I do not really spend much time on the subject. I am not a wing chun historian and I overlook a lot on these subjects. It is more of convenience for me and I post as I see these things. I also am not an expert or anything on Physics.

I viewed an article called Jeung Ngh - The Father of Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun
By Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen. In it they talk about time and space. It seems to go into some depth and since both of these people seem to be high on the organization charts, I figured it held some authority. Of course it doesn?t mean I understand it. I live only an hour away and I would LOVE to have one of the HFY people explain it in person. I do enjoy meeting them. In fact, we have been having various meetings in the bay area. Perhaps we can schedule one when many of the HFY people are in town, and the local ones should be welcome as well at any of the meets. Any ways, back on subject.

I am including some quotes from the article so you can get a sense why I think the way I do.

?If a practitioner were to use Taan Sau at the wrong space, he would not be in a position for simultaneous attack and defense?

This to me sets up a physical relationship between the taan sau and the opponent. The Taan Sau is part of the material world and its position is very important. If it is not in proper position, then it is useless. If I point my tan sau west when the attack is east, I have violated the space, obviously. However, if I point it 90 degrees and the attack is at 89 degrees, then I too have violated space. A small fraction of a millimeter is crucial. What sets this up? Part of it is the centerline between the opponent and the subject. In order for it to work and be in the correct place, the structure must be there. The body must be united and aligned. It can be in the correct place, but if there is no structure, then it is useless and can be capitalized on. Later parts of the article discusses the dynamic relationship between structure and many other important attributes of wing chun. Most of which I agree with. This is what I meant by space is structure. The article seems to say this, but they also say other things.

?If he used the Taan Sau at the wrong time, his opponent would not be denied the opportunity for challenge?

This seems to suggest timing. I could be wrong, but this is what this is implying. I can block a path by being in the ?proper position?, but if I do so at the wrong time, then I cannot challenge. That is what this is saying. Basically that is suggesting the timing is off and any fighter can understand that. Time is just a instant, a frame if you will. Physic majors will disagree, but I think it works in this model. So if I do something at the wrong time, how is that not timing? I cannot see any other thing it could be. Time is a mark from one instance to another, in the human mind. That interval is timing. No?

?Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun's emphasis on the physics of three dimensional space and the fourth dimension, time itself.?

LOL. This is sounding pseudo-physics. A lot of Physics majors can talk all day on this subject. I would really be more interested in hearing how HFY related this info prior to the 1900?s. We all are bound by these properties. It doesn?t matter weather or not you state you do or not. It is like gravity. I can say my wing chun places its emphasis on gravity, but it doesn?t change anything. Gravity always existed and always played a role. As does time and space. These are the smoke and mirrors I am speaking of that clouds the issue and convolutes the subject. There is absolutely nothing unique here.

?examinations of space begin with analysis of one's own body unity for the express purpose of engaging in hand-to-hand combat?

I think this speaks to structure and space that you wanted me to elaborate on. The article goes into more detail about the structure and position between oneself and the opponent. It is really a check in structure as it defines hand, body, and leg structure. Pretty straight forward I think.

?The third stage introduces the fourth dimension of time and involves movement of one's parts within defined space.?

Movement takes time. Again, timing. I have to act at the correct time, or my timing will be off. I am not sure how this is so confusing. As written, it is a bit convoluted, but it holds true for every fighter in every system world wide.

To me, I see nothing unique to HFY here. I can only see that the subject of time and space refer to the space of the practitioners body and the opponents. This can be described by structure and centerline theory. Time is the instant it is used. Sounds like timing to me.

Here is a practical example
?He [Gee sifu] used the Taan Sau to clearly demonstrate that front hand employment denied the use of simultaneous offense and defense because the back hand was out of range for striking. The time required to bring the back hand within range following front hand engagement was time the opponent could use for reaction. Clearly a time-space consideration was needed.?

The time in question here is clearly related to timing. There is an amount of time it takes the rear hand to be put into action. This is timing. How can it be anything other than that? But I would argue that it is not really a time factor, but a position or space factor as it is positioned incorrectly.

If you don?t want to start a new thread due to the inflammatory remarks, my email is always open at tom@namkuen.net as well as having plenty of time to meet HFY people in the bay area. I am open minded and would love to discuss these things. People used to shout why we don?t spend the time to investigate the art. People are now saying that I am confused and don?t know. Chango challenged us to learn more about the system. As I am unemployed at the moment, I cannot study with Gee sifu. But I am perfectly willing to meet any HFY person willing to educate me in these concepts.

Tom
________
Zx14 Vs Hayabusa (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

[Chango]

Hello Tom,
When I said that I did not believe that you did not grasp what had been revealed to you. I did not mean that as an insult. I honestly feel that way as I read your post discussing what you interpuret to be HFY. I never said at any point that I don't understand why you feel the way that you do. I can just tell that you understanding of HFY was not all clear. I wish I lived closer. I would loved to have met with you. Maybe if not in the near future maybe another time? If you ever get a chance to learn some of the Chi sim I think you will be pleasantly suprized as well. I hope you find your answers and find a better view of HFY.


Saat geng sau:cool:

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Chango,

I didn't really take it as an insult. Though I am a little concerned with the comment. I made/make an attempt to learn about it. With out full time study, it is difficult to grasp any subject. I fully admit I don't know much about HFY other than what is posted and what I was exposed to. So I have to rely on you guys. But there is little clarification, I just hear that I am incorrect. I will spend some time today and read some of these articals in detail and ponder them. To be honest, I have not been able to read them in full withh time to study them. Could you point me to the better articals on HFY that best discribe these principles?

I live near SF. I know many of you guys visit occasionally. The next time you do, I would be more than willing to stop by for an hour or so if you can spare it. Like I said, we have been trying to get many of the local wing chun folks together for meetings. It has been going well. You guys should consider coming. I am sure we could plan around your travel plans.

Well, I am open to any one willing to spend some time with me. Several people have extended this opertunity to those not so eager to look into HFY out in the midweast/east. Well, I am allways availible out in the US.

Tom
________
Motorcycle tires (http://www.motorcycle-tech.com/tires/motorcycle-tires)

[Chango]

Hello Tom,
At this point I do not have a trip to the bay area planned. However any chance I get I try to visit Sigung and my HFY family members. So I will keep your offer in mind. To be honest I would never point anyone to a written work to guide thier understanding in martial arts. I personally believe that written work should be used as a prompt or a method of mapping out studies but never as the primary source of info. Of course I'm a very "hands on" type of person and find it almost impossible to learn martial arts in any other way. So having said this I will say that if you ever get a chance to go see Sigung Gee again do so. However I will keep your offer in mind the next time I'm in the bay area.

Chango (saat geng sau) :cool:

[Rolling_Hand]

Saat Geng Sau wrote:

I personally believe that written work should be used as a prompt or a method of mapping out studies but never as the primary source of info. Of course I'm a very "hands on" type of person and find it almost impossible to learn martial arts in any other way.

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

Hi Saat,

I agree.

"hands on" give yourself to the journey.

Know this. Seek wisdom, and purity.

Brother Saat Geng Sau,

See ya on the top of WCK mountain.

Later....hahaha!

Roger

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Guys,

Chango, Thanks for the offer. I will take you up on it. LOL. I try to be criticl of all martial arts and not just HFY. I think I have been fair, honest, and open with you guys. Foot in the mouth, yes. My intentions are not to discredit any lineage as I hope you understand. But I have questions. And I applaud you guys that offer to help us realize your system.

I didn't want to "study" HFY through online documents. I want a little background so to maximize any other hands on I may have. I will poke around and see what I come up with. Hands on can be better, but written stuff can be valuable.

Roger,

Why is Chan written down?

Tom
________
Ass teen (http://www.****tube.com/categories/165/teen/videos/1)

[Rolling_Hand]

Roger,

Why is Chan written down?

Tom

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

Hi Tom,

The Ch'an that can be written down is not the true Ch'an.

If you want to read about No.2 Ch'an,

Hendrik has a copy for you!

Roger

[yylee]

From the web sites that I have looked at, Chinese historians do not value the book of "Xilu legend" highly at all. The places such as Po Leong, Poon Leong, Fuk Ten, and Po Ten counties described in the book could not be found any where in FuJien province. It is believed that the Tin Dei society needed to invent more idols to help boost the society's self serving superiority image. Some Chinese scholars suspect that Xilu was a fictious story based on an episode in Tong Dynasty in which a warrior monk helped the Emperior defeat Wong Zee Chong. Later versions of Xilu have more complex story lines, more characters, and many inconsistencies among versions were found. In the earliest version by Yiu, there is no mention of the fire in Shaolin, however the fire story appears in Shau's version which was published later, just to throw an example. Also, there are no official records of "Shaolin-on-fire" in Qing dynasty.

Don't know if you guys can read Chinese or not, here are two of sites that I've gone through.

http://www.hkwstc.com.hk/tamkoo.htm
http://www.geocities.com/quan_fa/shaolin.html

There is also a mainland Chinese official web site on Shaolin (but I forgot the URL), they are currently working on an English mirror version, so there shall be more to come that will clarify Shaolin history.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
Roger,

Why is Chan written down?

Tom

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

Hi Tom,

The Ch'an that can be written down is not the true Ch'an.

If you want to read about No.2 Ch'an,

Hendrik has a copy for you!

Roger


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

Hi Tom,

Damo has to use Laka sutra to certify his decendent for mind seal.
Fifth patriach has to use Diamond Sutra to certify his decendent for mind seal.

Now, Rolling hand, the mighty of all Chan, claiming something EVEN the CHAN Patriach will not practice.



Rolling Hand,

so who is your Chan teacher who Transmittes the Mind Seal to You? what is your Chan legacy? Which Sutra was used as Certification?

IT is time for you to answer quetions don't you? and by the way, Clock is ticking. EVery second passing mark that you agree with me on the Shao Lin His-story. See, I am wrong. But where is your evident to support I am wrong?



By the way, I have also waiting for you to translate this about your Shao Lin for weeks now.

http://www.geocities.com/quan_fa/shaolin.html

Since your english is great and much much better then me. Why don't you translate this for us. and it will help the VTM researchers to know what the real Chinese historians research.

[Rolling_Hand]

<<Damo has to use Laka sutra to certify his decendent for mind seal.
Fifth patriach has to use Diamond Sutra to certify his decendent for mind seal.>>Hendrik

**Is that something new for you to tell the world about it? If not, I prefer listen to Karen Carparter's songs than Hendrik's *I-tell-you-so*.

<<Now, Rolling hand, the mighty of all Chan, claiming something EVEN the CHAN Patriach will not practice.>>Hendrik

**Now, what are you saying? Hendrik, Please don't put *your words* in my mouth, and don't speak for Ch'an either. If you are a true Ch'an practioner, you begin to see *stop talking about Charlie Chan* is the only way to help you see how you can create basic goodness for yourself and others on the spot.

<<Rolling Hand,

so who is your Chan teacher who Transmittes the Mind Seal to You? what is your Chan legacy? Which Sutra was used as Certification?>>Hendrik

**Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know. If you want to discuss *Chan* with RH, the first thing you need to do is to go to see Guru Chogyam in Tibet, and let's see if you're qualifty to speak about Ch'an.

<<IT is time for you to answer quetions don't you? and by the way, Clock is ticking. EVery second passing mark that you agree with me on the Shao Lin His-story. See, I am wrong. But where is your evident to support I am wrong?>>Hendrik

**It's time for you to look a little deeper about your own lineage, why is Yik Kam's Kung Fu the same as Shaolin Bok Hok Kuen? Don't you think there's a connection there? Regardless Yik Kam's White Crane is from Emie or Shaolin Bok Hok Kuen, the fact is fact; WCK is WCK, White Crane is White Crane, do you get it? Dr Yang Jing-Ming also has a book about White Crane Kung-Fu, many pictures on his book and Yik Kam's Kung-Fu are almost the same! I think that's the DNA you've been looking for, isn't it?

<<By the way, I have also waiting for you to translate this about your Shao Lin for weeks now.

http://www.geocities.com/quan_fa/shaolin.html

Since your english is great and much much better then me. Why don't you translate this for us. and it will help the VTM researchers to know what the real Chinese historians research.>>Hendrik

**First, why do you feel the need to attack the VTM and the Gee Sim family? Second, these gossips about Gee Sim from this link are nothing but a whole bunch of BBBsss. If you want to know the real history of Gee Sim, you should speak to Grandmaster Andreas Hoffmann or Benny Meng. They are the real experts on Gee Sim history. Unlike you, they don't look up the internet to find some third hand info and call it as a fact, they're THERE in person, doing research for the whole MA world, not just for your Yik Kam family. I was from Fatshan, I had heard all of these stories before, but I don't like to spread all these gossips and rumors like you and your friends did in the past, because I know they're just hear and say type of stories, nothing is there. IMO, the VTM is doing the right thing to go directly to the sources of information....Hoffmann, William Cheung, Yip Ching, May Yat, Garrett Cee...Hong Kong, China, everywhere to do their jobs.

[tparkerkfo]

First, why do you feel the need to attack the VTM and the Gee Sim family?
Roger

Gee, the pot calling the kettle black! Lets see what was written a couple paragraphs earlier


It's time for you to look a little deeper about your own lineage, why is Yik Kam's Kung Fu the same as Shaolin Bok Hok Kuen?

Tom
________
Fisting Fat (http://www.****tube.com/categories/567/fat/videos/1)

[Rolling_Hand]

<<Gee, the pot calling the kettle black! Lets see what was written a couple paragraphs earlier>>Tom

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the coffee!

Have you got one for yourself?

[Geezer]

yylee Wrote>

From the web sites that I have looked at, Chinese historians do not value the book of "Xilu legend" highly at all.

Fromw the written text I have it quotes about 11 diffrent sources(books) and a large majority of the refrences are from the twentith century.

Rene Wrote>

. In the early 1900s, Sun Yat-Sen ordered the National Historians to assemble them into a working history he could use to convince the overseas Triads that they had nationalistic roots, and thus gain their support to lead the country. The historians couldn't really succeed, of course, because even in this origin, the Shaolin, and hence the rebellion wasn't patriotic, it was vengeful.

I've been thinking about this......and I couldn't understand how most of the refrences I have listed are from China, so I couldn't really see how Communist China would promote something Sun Yat Sen was preaching??????????

Sheldon

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Hendrik/Tom!


A wise man learns from ones mistakes, An even wiser man learns from the mistakes of others!

Dont Feed The Trolls!

Unless of couse you like playing with children.


Regards,

[reneritchie]

David,

You're correct. Modern scholars, especially Chinese ones, would probably laugh as loud at the Xilu legends being talked about as history as NASA would someone going on their boards and talking about the moon being made of Green Cheese based on old folk stories.

Things then were little different in essance than they are now. Everyone needed money and power. The stories helped them attract new members and make more money in their pyramid model. It was good business.

Sheldon,

It went through phases, first Sun Yat-Sen, then the French, then the PRC. The PRC chose to remodel things to show the Triads were early communits who organized along the ideals of mutual aid, and pooled resources to help with equipment purchases, birth, death, and wedding expenses, self-protection, etc. An aspect, to be sure, but one they pushed as heavily as Sun Yat-Sen did Shaolin patriots. Unfortunately, the PRC also left most of the historical archives locked away and didn't let anyone in until the end of the 20th century. Qin Baoqi did some very pivotal work at that point.

Again, it would all make sense to you if you consulted the modern works. (Or is this some ingeniuous plan to get me to type them all out for you just to save a few quid?)

[yylee]

Originally posted by reneritchie
David,

You're correct. Modern scholars, especially Chinese ones, would probably laugh as loud at the Xilu legends being talked about as history as NASA would someone going on their boards and talking about the moon being made of Green Cheese based on old folk stories.

Things then were little different in essance than they are now. Everyone needed money and power. The stories helped them attract new members and make more money in their pyramid model. It was good business.



Rene

It is easy to find translations of the book "Shaolin Fang Gu" by Wen Yu Chen ISBN:7-5306-2830-5. One version by Chris Toepker of the name "The Riddle of Southern Shaolin" has the following:

"Fan Wen Lian's 1941 revision of the "Complete History of China? (school text book), struck out the line "Kang Xi's 13th year, the triads were formed?they were begun by the Putian, Fujian Jiu Lian Mountain Shaolin Temple monks,? because it was seen as incorrect and nothing but legend because Putian does not have a Jiu Lian Mountain. Also, "martial monks? are not solely from Shaolin. In the Yuan Dynasty, the Quan Zhou Kai Yuan monastery also had fighting monks. Therefore, the words "martial monks? carved on the stele cannot be definitively related to Shaolin, northern or southern."

http://www.hungkuen.net/history-riddleofshaolin.htm

Although Southern Shaolin has been rebuilt, there is still much room for further historical research.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
<<Damo has to use Laka sutra to certify his decendent for mind seal.
Fifth patriach has to use Diamond Sutra to certify his decendent for mind seal.>>Hendrik

**Is that something new for you to tell the world about it? If not, I prefer listen to Karen Carparter's songs than Hendrik's *I-tell-you-so*.


<<Now, Rolling hand, the mighty of all Chan, claiming something EVEN the CHAN Patriach will not practice.>>Hendrik

**Now, what are you saying? Hendrik, Please don't put *your words* in my mouth, and don't speak for Ch'an either. If you are a true Ch'an practioner, you begin to see *stop talking about Charlie Chan* is the only way to help you see how you can create basic goodness for yourself and others on the spot.




Since you claim a different teaching compare to the teaching of Chan School.
Don't you think it is your responsibiliy to explain where your Chan is from?
If it is your invention, then say so. It is perfectly ok.




<<Rolling Hand,

so who is your Chan teacher who Transmittes the Mind Seal to You? what is your Chan legacy? Which Sutra was used as Certification?>>Hendrik

**Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know. If you want to discuss *Chan* with RH, the first thing you need to do is to go to see Guru Chogyam in Tibet, and let's see if you're qualifty to speak about Ch'an.


Are you Saying that Buddha who's teaching recorded in all those sutras don't know what he is talking about since you claim who know do not speak?


Chan is a Chinese School and transmission. What Tibetian legacy has to do with the Chan legacy of China?

As for Guru Chogyam, or other Rimpoches, I am certainly interested to speak of Ganges MAHA Mudra with them.
As I qualify or not why don't you ask them.

Certainly, one dont ask about Mac Donard's bugger quailification from Bugger King.





<<IT is time for you to answer quetions don't you? and by the way, Clock is ticking. EVery second passing mark that you agree with me on the Shao Lin His-story. See, I am wrong. But where is your evident to support I am wrong?>>Hendrik

**It's time for you to look a little deeper about your own lineage, why is Yik Kam's Kung Fu the same as Shaolin Bok Hok Kuen? Don't you think there's a connection there? Regardless Yik Kam's White Crane is from Emie or Shaolin Bok Hok Kuen, the fact is fact; WCK is WCK, White Crane is White Crane, do you get it? Dr Yang Jing-Ming also has a book about White Crane Kung-Fu, many pictures on his book and Yik Kam's Kung-Fu are almost the same! I think that's the DNA you've been looking for, isn't it?






Sure, WCK is WCK,
White CRane is white Crane.
but what makes SLT is SLT?
What is your opion and your evidents?

Certainly, You can keep speculate about Yik kam's SLT but you have never seen YIK KAm SLT and the record. You might want to question yourself why do you always like to speculate what you have no idea about.

Again, don't shift focus, I need your evidents. Clock is ticking.





<<By the way, I have also waiting for you to translate this about your Shao Lin for weeks now.

http://www.geocities.com/quan_fa/shaolin.html

Since your english is great and much much better then me. Why don't you translate this for us. and it will help the VTM researchers to know what the real Chinese historians research.>>Hendrik

**First, why do you feel the need to attack the VTM and the Gee Sim family? Second, these gossips about Gee Sim from this link are nothing but a whole bunch of BBBsss. If you want to know the real history of Gee Sim, you should speak to Grandmaster Andreas Hoffmann or Benny Meng. They are the real experts on Gee Sim history.


Unlike you, they don't look up the internet to find some third hand info and call it as a fact, they're THERE in person, doing research for the whole MA world, not just for your Yik Kam family.



I was from Fatshan, I had heard all of these stories before, but I don't like to spread all these gossips and rumors like you and your friends did in the past, because I know they're just hear and say type of stories, nothing is there. IMO, the VTM is doing the right thing to go directly to the sources of information....Hoffmann, William Cheung, Yip Ching, May Yat, Garrett Cee...Hong Kong, China, everywhere to do their jobs. :D


It is just a simple discussion of Facts and translation of what the Chinese Historians has found about Southern Shao Lin since VTM published article and make claims.
Here, We are just reveal different source of history imformations. Why get upset? If it is not true then just not true. that simple.

What Gossips? IT is written black and white by the Chinese Historians.

So why make it complicated by dropping names and attacking me?

Don't you see it is about facts not about me?

I respect your belive. However, you need to respect other's also. you can reason with me but attacking me and accusation is no good what if you are dead wrong? there always a 50/50 chance.
Beside, you don't even know where I was in China tracing the Breaking in rout of Lee zhi-Chen to BeiJing where forcing the Ming emperor to commit suicide 16xx ... to SHang Hai 1850's.and .... So again don't make assumption .
And from Fatsan doesn't give you a ticket to the truth. There might be some others who has even go further then all of us but not saying a thing.

We all are equal. You can be correct in certain things which I will not argue with you. But, look as in Chinese saying, how vast is heaven how thick is earth?

how are we so sure we always right?
We can't

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Jim Roselando
Hey Hendrik/Tom!


A wise man learns from ones mistakes, An even wiser man learns from the mistakes of others!

Dont Feed The Trolls!

Unless of couse you like playing with children.


Regards,


Jim,

YOu are right.

Hendrik

[Phenix]

Hi YY,

Since my ancestors are from both Fujian Sao An and Pootian.
so do I have a ticket to say what I am saying is the truth and only truth? ha ha hahah Ofcause joking.

Hendrik

[yylee]

Originally posted by Phenix
Hi YY,

Since my ancestors are from both Fujian Sao An and Pootian.
so do I have a ticket to say what I am saying is the truth and only truth? ha ha hahah Ofcause joking.

Hendrik

Hi Hendrik

Then you must have fought the Qing in your past lifes! Ha ha ha, just joking.....

YY

[Phenix]

Originally posted by yylee


Hi Hendrik

Then you must have fought the Qing in your past lifes! Ha ha ha, just joking.....

YY


Hi YY,

If you are buddist and belive in reincarnation as the tibetian..., why not?

why some can find the path to Dien Chun Dang but some can't disregard how many times one goes to china.
and some belive in Shaolin some don't.
some goes direct to Emei. and some stay to belive the fighting of Red turban?


HaHaHa, speak in dreaming.

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

Again, it would all make sense to you if you consulted the modern works. (Or is this some ingeniuous plan to get me to type them all out for you just to save a few quid?)

I think any text......if it is 200yrs old is relevent to finding out the truth, I guess I need to hurry up and finish retypeing that text into 'word' so I can post it here.
And, if you want Rene........saving money is a good thing;)


yylee Wrote>

One version by Chris Toepker of the name "The Riddle of Southern Shaolin" has the following:

I know who Chris Toepker is.....he's over at Southern Fist online, trains in Hung Ga.


As soon as I've finished I'll post it and see what you guys can make of it?????


Sheldon

[KPM]

I think any text......if it is 200yrs old is relevent to finding out the truth, I guess I need to hurry up and finish retypeing that text into 'word' so I can post it here.
And, if you want Rene........saving money is a good thing;)


----Seems to me that a fairy tale is still a fairy tale whether is it 2 yrs old, 200 yrs old, or 2000 yrs old. You have to be careful what you accept as history, even if it is written down.

Keith