To be or not to be!!!

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


To continue the discussion I am starting this topic fresh!


Some people will like to believe the "Shaolin" WC theory and some may not. Why not discuss some structural evidence as to how and why those feel it is or isnt? Here are some of my reasons for my beliefs. These are also my reasons for believing in Hendrik's theory! I have posted these before and now that we are all discussing in an adult way I see we can continue this thread without the Trolls. Please realize! THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY LINEAGE! If it did then I would be insulting my own lineage! ;)

1) I tend to believe that WC doenst have as many similarities to the so-called Shaolin arts (in body structure/form pattern/numerology/etc.) as it would have to a Zhan Zhuang combo (fukien crane).

2) The South Mantis I practiced was more of a "Hard Bow" as Hendrik put it. They had practice with holding the breath and pressing the ribs down (dip gwat gong) and openning the ribs. They had a more arched slightly forward lean to the body which was more similar to Dragon, Whitebrow, White Crane etc.. WC does not lean forward or backward. It stands neutral and doesnt force the breath (or reverse it as in Bak Mei) with pumping the Dip Gwat Gong. While there may be similarity with the hands that is not enough to say its just modern Shaolin.

3) Which so-called Shaolin art (Mantis,Dragon,Whitebrow,White Crane) uses the Loi Lau Hoi Sung principle and has it written in their Kuit? To do this one would need Sung as their base and the so-called Shaolin arts do not base their training around this Zhuang concept.

4) The so-called Shaolin I did (and others I have exchanged with) contracted the muscles during punching and other methods. Wing Chun does not contract the muscles.

5) The so-called Shaolin uses the heal to toe alignment and cat types stance for flanking. They never shift. Wing Chun does not make use of this foot alignment and has shifting as part of its footwork.

6) The so-called Shaolin make use of a Doy Jong type strength sets and other isometric (or resistance training) two man training for power development where as WC would never do this. Isometrics is opposite of the principle of Yin Sun as WC makes use of.

7) The so-called Shaolin uses the cross patterns and three steps for the forms sequence where as WC starts off with non-moving and left and right moving. More info below.

8) The so-called Shaolin has the 3,18,108 numerology for their forms where as WC does not use numerology for forms titles. Why and how would they have dropped this to come up with the name Siu Lin Tao? Siu is more akin to the principle of Zhuang!

9) The so-called Shaolin arts do not make use of a sticky hands platform like the older WC does. I am not talking about the newer Luk Sao but reather the Circling Hands chi sao that Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo, the Cho's preserve, Yuen Kay San also has etc.. This type of sticky hands is more in tune with a Taiji Toy Sho but more effective thanks to the south fist element.

10) If the so-called Shaolin arts all follow the 3 steps/4 corners in their forms (as I wrote above) then what was the deciding element when WC was developed to allow its first form or first section of the form to be a stationary (Zhan Zhuang) training? It is a form of Zhan Zhuang so someone had to understand this aspect or them to appreciate it enough to change the root into this. (Hence the reason for WC being a cobo of Fukien Crane and 12 posts makes sense) You cant just come up with it out of the blue.

11) We all talk about WC being a simpler and quicker art to make use of. We all say how it was used for anit-ching etc.. What is it about WC that makes people think its easier to use versus some of the other South Fist with IMO an easier structure to make use of in the early stages????? To me! The harder approach would be easier early on.

If they were all from the same temple, and most other so-called Shaolin make use of these characteristic, then why wouldnt WCK? WC is unique to the south arts as it looks like it but is different. To be different you would need some kind of influence. You cannot just come up with this out of the blue and even if you pooled knowledge. The human body is not like an Airplane. Computers can develop new ways but humans without experiencing something else would not be able to.


Regard,

[black and blue]

You said:


The so-called Shaolin arts do not make use of a sticky hands platform like the older WC does. I am not talking about the newer Luk Sao but reather the Circling Hands chi sao that Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo, the Cho's preserve, Yuen Kay San also has etc.. This type of sticky hands is more in tune with a Taiji Toy Sho but more effective thanks to the south fist element.

I know my question is a little away from your thread's main topic, but I'll ask anyway...

Can you explain the dynamics/movements/principles etc for Circling Hands Chi Sau, as I'm not familiar with this platform? I'm afraid I am, like many, only familiar with the Poon Sau platform.

Many thanks

Duncan

Ps. With regards an earlier email, can you PM me with some contact details for those Non-Yip Man lineage folks you know in Wales?

:)

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Duncan,


You can contact Robert Steven's. His e-mail is;

Robwdwc@hotmail.com

I dont know if he is willing to meet up with you or not as that is up to him. He is kind of private and only works with a few people over there and has only one training partner for the Koo Lo WC. Give it a shot. Cant hurt. I know his teacher has a club and I would suggest visiting both if possible. His primary teacher was Dave Preston.


Now! With regards to Circling Hands! That is a different topic for a new thread! I dont want this thread to go off so early on when it has a definite purpose. Start a new thread and I will be more than happy to answer any questions regarding it!


:D


Regards,

[black and blue]

Will do - on all accounts.

[taltos]

Hi Jim,

First, I’m only trying to share my experiences and my perceptions. I think this thread is a definite good start, and I appreciate the honesty with which you presented your opinions, and the information that led you to those conclusions. I’ll try to do the same, for the sake of discussion. Each person is certainly entitled to their opinion. I am only offering mine.

One of the things that facilitated my understanding of HFY, and helped me see the underlying connections we are debating, was to always be mindful of the conceptual nature of Wing Chun. If I look at the way you stand, or the way you move, I only see the stance or the movement. If I learn WHY you stand that way, or WHY you move that way (if I instead focus on the conceptual underpinnings), the issue rapidly dissolves away. However, if one cannot think conceptually, the differences will always be there, glaring and debilitating.

As an example, I agree that Wing Chun is, on the whole, taller that Southern Mantis. However, Southern Mantis DOES contain (from my research) the operational concepts of “centerline theory; intercepting hand and sticky hand; rooting, moving the center, attaching the center; crossing the bridge; straight power and borrowing force.” So from a structural perspective, there may be little similarity, but from a conceptual perspective, there seems to be some level of similarity.

I do not know if any other arts have “Loi Lau Hoi Sung” in their Kuen Kuit. However, the absence (or even the inclusion) of a single Kuen Kuit cannot make or break a connection. I would venture to say that a library of Kuen Kuit could possibly make an argument, but only in terms of what was written down, which does not address a majority of the other information available for comparison.

Since HFY history describes the cooperation of Shaolin Temple Monks with Ming Military Officers, it is certainly possible that some of the differences people see (some of the things people see as “not Shaolin”) could have come from the strategic thinking and quick-combat-training brought in via the military influence. In terms of numerology, I feel that it’s certainly possible that any absence perceived could also be the result of a more streamlined, military approach.

If HFY came from Shaolin, and Shaolin (obviously) came from Shaolin, I don’t see any inconsistency in Leung Jan Sifu teaching something in the 19th Century that was absent or different in the years prior. His teachings (indeed, anyone’s teachings) could be variegated from the arts preceding it. This applies to any art. Any Friday night on HBO shows that there are many ways to throw a punch, but that does not in and of itself mean that Western Boxing did not stem from a common place (or common places) or origin.

I don’t agree that “You cant just come up with it out of the blue” when referring to parallel development. Many different cultures, with no connection to one another and no contact with one another, came up with virtually identical concepts of astronomy, math, and science. Truth is truth, no matter the language and no matter the culture. However, I was also unaware that Fukien Crane and 12 posts were the only arts, and the only people, who had knowledge of and a system of Zhan Zhuang. I had always been under the impression that it had existed as a form of Hei Gung in many other systems as well. Does anyone else know of other arts (besides these two and WC) that have such a tool?

I think the speed in which WC can be “operationalized” is a matter of personal experience. I tried to show my wife some basic self-defense moves based on what I had been previously taught (before we began training WC), and it just was not sinking in. However, after a relatively small amount of time in WC, her balance, flexibility, etc, AS WELL AS ability to defend herself was exponentially improved from before. On the other hand, I have seen people spend large amounts of time in WC, never trying to learn the principles and concepts, always trying to insert their hard fist or street fighting “favorite moves,” and learn virtually nothing. It’s a path, not a destination, and as such, it’s up to the individual.

If this discussion is only based on physical structure, then certainly discrepancies may arise. If this discussion were only about theory, the same would happen. Anytime a question can only be answered within a confined framework, one that does not address all of the pertinent and applicable points, it is a loaded question, and the answer itself can never truly be given. However, I think the underlying premise of trying to look at the differences and similarities between WC and Shaolin is definitely the way to go. It just seems that we mush include much more than the physical structure. Many Sifus, from many WC lines, have said numerous times that the motion is just the motion, you have to understand the principle, the mental aspect. I think this issue is no different.

Thanks for your time.

Peace,

-Levi

[Savi]

Very well stated Levi! Your perspective, I also share. In another thread where I was talking with Desertwingchun2 and Phenix, I have expressed similar values you share here.

Excellent post Levi.

[t_niehoff]

Jim,

I think this is the wrong approach. If someone makes a lineage claim, like that they descend from so-and-so, then the only way to prove it is by showing lineage -- a line of persons to the person or thing they claim a connection to. HFY can't prove lineage back past Garrett Gee. End of story. If they can't even show lineage back one generation, they certainly can't expect to prove it back two generations or 30 generations. Don't take rediculous claims seriously; and to offer to debate these claims only acts to give the claims some respectability. HFY can claim anything, but we all know that arts can be, and have been, "molded" by "founders" to include what the want their art to reflect (if I want to claim a connection to Shaolin, I mold my art to include "Shaolin" terminology, shapes, Ch'an, pulp fiction, etc. and then claim it comes from Shaolin.). TN

Terence

[Savi]

Terence, your skeptisim is welcome. However, attacks and insults have ZERO tolerance here. Two examples are listed below:
1) attack:

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I think this is the wrong approach. If someone makes a lineage claim, like that they descend from so-and-so, then the only way to prove it is by showing lineage -- a line of persons to the person or thing they claim a connection to. HFY can't prove lineage back past Garrett Gee. End of story. Terence
I'm sorry Terence, but it is only the end of YOUR story. Discussing lineage means to discuss personal family information. Just because actual proof has not been provided to the public, does not mean it does not exist. As it is, you have displayed disrespect and discontent to the HFY family; therefore, I must say to you that future attacks/insults from you regarding my family's lineage will be reported to the moderator. No more discussion from me [about this 'issue' you have] will be entertained.

2) insult:

Originally posted by t_niehoff
... but we all know that arts can be, and have been, "molded" by "founders" to include what the want their art to reflect (if I want to claim a connection to Shaolin, I mold my art to include "Shaolin" terminology, shapes, Ch'an, pulp fiction, etc. and then claim it comes from Shaolin.). Terence
This may have been true, and it may not have been true. The above quote, whether true or not, is a direct insult to other parties. I do not know if you are speaking from experience, but it does not sound like you are. Regardless, the comment is distasteful to the productivity of the forum.

Terence, this is thread regarding possible historical connections, no noise please. Jim Roselando's thread is a good one, let's not ruin it.

Thank you.

[reneritchie]

Hey Jim,

Very good post. Of course it's impossible to disprove a negative, so people can come up with all sorts of "buts". For example, I could claim my WCK comes from a secret sect of General Li's who hid in the Wutai mountains following the fall of the Ming, and despite the unlikelihood, probably argue you to a stalemate about it. That being said, you show a lot of very important reasons why WCK can't be of purely Shaolin descent. On top of that, you're referring to what is termed "Southern Shaolin", which may be a misnomer to begin with ("Southern Shaolin" may have no connection to real, Songshan Shaolin). If we use the same criteria to evaluate WCK compared with Songshan Shaolin (Lohanquan) it's obvious there is no direct descent from from the latter to former.

Two points to consider, however:

1) Then and now its very important to some people's/lineage's self-identity to be linked to Shaolin (even people within our own lineages), so it will never be a purely rational discussion. Almost like trying to convince a loved one to quit smoking.

2) Wing and Weng are not exclusive characters, and other arts have used them in the past and present, so there may well be some "Southern Shaolin" arts that use Wing or Weng in their names with no relation to what the descendants of the Red Junks passed on. Likewise (as you can find in SEA), there may be some other arts that use the Weng or Wing name and have added in more familiar WCK trappings since its become so famous (eg. calling the Siu Mui Fa the Siu Nim Tao, going from Dui Lian Sao to Chi Sao, etc.) Some students aren't aware of this, so to them, their use of the WCK names can be as confusing as the Weng/Wing characters themselves.

[taltos]

... I think that this thread started with a genuine spirit of offering up information and interpretations for gentlemanly discussion and consideration. When a piece of information was presented, it was qualified (as IMO, as "according to...," et al). I have enjoyed the chance to share in a nonconfrontational environment and would genuinely welcome the chance to continue to do so, if others are so inclined.

Thanks to everyone who has responded to Jim and attempted to share some tea. I'm sure we can keep up the good momentum.

-Levi

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Levi, Savi & Terence,


Levi & Savi,


I fully understand you POV. Most of the South Fist I have studied were Principle based arts and so is the WCK. What I am doing in the listing of my views is listing out reasons I believe things can be connected to what and why!

Hendrik is the only one who can state some facts or show any purpose as to why WC came to be that makes sense IMO. Everything I wrote can link into Hendrik's Zuang/Fukien theory.

While yes, many use centerline theory (and many are very similar since they are all south fist/short hand), we have to try and show why WCK is what it is rather than just saying it was a concept that the monks and military came up with. I am showing you why I believe we stand the way we do! So does Hendrik. Taking the Fukien and blending the Zhuang would show why we stand the way we do. Then, we could all discuss how and where the power comes from but that is a different discussion.

With Loi Lao not being there I would say its because the focus of that Kuit is somewhat found in Float, Spit, Swallow, Sink. So, I say, why or where do you feel it came from?

If the monks worked with the military then what were the arts or knowledge that was combined to create a WCK?

Actually, we do agree that things just cant come out of the blue since you stated that it was a combined effort between monks and military. All I say is what was the combination?

A fair number of internal arts make use of Zhuang. Nobody ever said only Emei. All that has been said was that Emei seems to have the most similarities. Zhuang is not common in the so-called south Shaolin.

Speed of usage of an art is up to the individual but rooting in a Zhuang stance for fighting is not as easy as a heal to toe horse. Most of those arts have you walk the horse from early on as in WC you just stand so in combat it is easier to make use of in the early stages IMO.

I think looking at theory and principle is great but when linking an art one must use other factors. Many arts are similar and are principle based. If you dont show info. to link and just make use of ideas or principles (or the conceptual theory) then you will end up with just speculation unfortunately.

Thanks for the chat.


Hey Terence,


You make some very good points! I was just trying to show how and why I believe in WC not being direct from Shaolin etc.. I also wanted to show why I believe in Hendrik. I was hoping to get a good technical debate going and hopefully some good stuff will show up.


Good speaking with you.


Regards,

[Savi]

Are you familiar with the HFY Wing Chun Formula? It was discussed in the article about GM Cheung Ng. Your thread I am assuming is (partly?) focused on differences in structure, right?

Well, from my perspective, first let's say someone believes and is....

1) assuming HFY 'represents' the paradigm shift from traditional Shaolin structure to WC structure... then

2) by #1's assumption, that someone can conclude that the HFYWCF is the foundation of today's WC structure if that someone understands the HFYWCF.

The following information is from the Jeung Ng article which I think addresses the change in structure from "so-called Shaolin" as you say, to Wing Chun.

In the article, it is stated:
Development of martial self-awareness occurs in three stages. The first stage involves attainment of maximum efficiency in structural unity by aligning one's own body parts to provide an optimum mix of balance, strength and ease of use in relation to three-dimensional space. The second stage involves developing an awareness of an opponent's structures and flaws in relation to his own space. The third stage introduces the fourth dimension of time and involves movement of one's parts within defined space.

In the first stage, the practitioner examines the depth, height, and width of his own space in terms of 4 elements of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun formula: 1 centerline (focal point), 2 lines of defense (depth), 3 reference points (height), and the 3-line concept (width). In order to define one's own precise space and the most efficient placement of his own parts within it, he must be able to describe that space in all dimensions. These four elements of the Wing Chun formula allow him to do just that.

The first element, centerline, provides a vertical reference line allowing for centering the depth, height, and width components of the practitioner's space.

The second element, 2 lines of defense, tells the practitioner how far both of his hands need to be away from his body. This is the 'depth' component of his own space. The height element, referred to as the 3 reference points, gives him the proper vertical positioning for aligning each of his limbs. Lastly, the 3-line concept provides a precise description of the width of his space on a horizontal plane. Properly understood, these four elements allow him to quickly align his body parts for optimum simplicity, efficiency, and directness in relation to his opponent when motion is introduced.

In the second stage, the opponent's structure is examined to determine one's own weapons alignment. The same four elements of the Wing Chun formula are used to analyze the opponent's structure. Are his hands and feet at the proper distances from his torso? Are his elbows, hands, knees, and feet aligned according to the 3-line concept? Are they at the correct height, or are they too low? All of these factors are taken into account, because they will directly affect control of space and time.

In the third stage, time comes to play. This stage begins when the practitioner aligns his structure with his opponent's. Time can only be referenced when there is a second object to be interacted with in space. Optimum alignment allows the simultaneous use of offense and defense. It also requires the opponent to make adjustments in his own structure before employment of his own weapons. This gives the practitioner a time advantage over his opponent. He trains to align his structure so that his opponent is only able to use a fraction of his body and weapons against the practitioner 's full arsenal. While the opponent is adjusting to bring all of his weapons into proper alignment, the Hung Fa Yi practitioner is in control of time and is already using it to advantage.

David [desertwingchun] stated in another thread that WC was based on new ways of thinking. I then discussed the paradigm shift in another thread. I am of the understanding that the answer you look for is founded in the HFYWCF which was one result of the paradigm shift, or 'new way of thinking'. Do you have any thoughts regarding my position on this? :)

[TjD]

savi,
i see no transitioning from shaolin in that excerpt. it only seems to be a description of the stages a HFY practicioner goes through in learning the system.

where is the shaolin connection? how did this emerge from shaolin?

if it is just a "new way of thinking" that offers next to no connection to anything before it, my wing chun or even tae kwon do has just as much right to say it was the "new way of thinking" in that regard, and the holder of the "paradigm shift" from shaolin to wing chun.

[Geezer]

Taken From "Is Yik Kam of Cho Family Wing Chun also Dai Fa Min Kam of Chi Sim Weng Chun ?" tparker Wrote>

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.

tparkerfo Wrote>

Hung Kuen is considered by most to be VERY close to what was taught in shaolin.

Savi Wrote>

The first stage involves attainment of maximum efficiency in structural unity by aligning one's own body parts to provide an optimum mix of balance, strength and ease of use in relation to three-dimensional space.

It seems to me that other Chinese arts had made adjustments judging from tparkerfo's quote, so Hung Gar had a lowered stance to deal with the rocking boats, great stabilty but not very good mobilty. So HFY has developed the best of both worlds??.

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

Tom is incorrect. Hung Ga Kuen is a development of Fujian martial methods in Guangdong, and went through substantial change while in Guangdong province, including the addition/creation of "seed" sets like Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen and Tiet Sien Kuen. (Even in legend, tiger master Hung Hey-Goon married crane mistress Fong Wing-Chun and mixed their two arts to create Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen, making it only 50% "Shaolin", never mind that many modern sources place the sets introduction far later, at Wong Fei-Hong's time).

Gung Jee Fook Fu Kuen may be the best preservation of the material that came from Fujian, but research would need to be done in order to link it to a specific set extant in Fujian, then link that set back to "Southern Shaolin", then link it back to real (Songshan) Shaolin (and its possible there is no connection and any or all of those points).

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Savi!


TjD has said it for me. Its just info and no evidence of new ways of thinking. It doesnt show any sort of connection to Shaolin or not. Just a progression of HFY.


Geezer,


What you wrote shows no connection to Shaolin. Just adjustments made from practitioners of the years.


Rene,

Great posts. Both of them. When I say the so-called south shaolin I usally am just refering to the mantis, crane etc.. They claim that but logic says from their own history that they are indeed Hakka (northern guests).


I look forward to more technical info. on what the combos were to develop WC or what was the art they feel WC stemmed from etc. etc.. Please keep in mind this is not a HFY only debate. That is not the intentions. It about the Shaolin/development of WCK and Hendriks theories. I hope othe lineages chime in so we can hear other views.


Thanks for the good chat.


Regards,

[yuanfen]

Jim R. sez:
The so-called Shaolin arts do not make use of a sticky hands platform like the older WC does. I am not talking about the newer Luk Sao but reather the Circling Hands chi sao that Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo, the Cho's preserve, Yuen Kay San also has etc.. This type of sticky hands is more in tune with a Taiji Toy Sho but more effective thanks to the south fist element.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim- I enjoyed your large post. But I dont know why you engage in this same old dialog of the deaf. No real historical links emerge-
just the same old catechism recitation.

A small but serious quibble- many styles have some sort of sticking principles
each from their own platforms. I am uncertain as to why you call luk sao- "newer".. specially when compared to Koo Lo circling.
Because a ancestor learned something from Leung Jan in his final years does not make something newer or older! A form of circling hand is there in Ip man wing chun as well as part of the chi sao continuum..

IMO- also Terence's question on contemporary pre-Gee roots of his art is legitimate. If I am also reported to the moderator-too bad. Gee and his followers are entitled to their beliefs- but it is fuzzy and different enough on principles and how expressed-
why waste time with the same old same old noise and heat and very little light..

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

Tom is incorrect.

On what part????the lowered stances or the being very close to Shaolin???

Jim Roselando wrote>

What you wrote shows no connection to Shaolin. Just adjustments made from practitioners of the years.

Adjustments that took it from being Horse, Point, Slide, Bow, Cross to "The first stage involves attainment of maximum efficiency in structural unity by aligning one's own body parts to provide an optimum mix of balance, strength and ease of use in relation to three-dimensional space" maybe........

Sheldon;)

[fa_jing]

Wu sao is the same Buddha hand used by the shaolin monks in bowing and prayer. The same one you see in 18 Lohan set. This to me proves the shaolin influence, not to say that there weren't other influences as well.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by fa_jing
Wu sao is the same Buddha hand used by the shaolin monks in bowing and prayer. The same one you see in 18 Lohan set. This to me proves the shaolin influence, not to say that there weren't other influences as well.
Many martial arts strike with a closed fist. This proves that they all derive from Greek boxing. :rolleyes:

Not that there weren't other influences as well. :p

[reneritchie]

Savi,

Very good post, the only problem I can see in it is that its completely based on the first assumption.

1) It doesn't provide any reasonable argument as to why the first assumption should be made.

2) It does nothing to show the "proctor hoc ergo sempter hoc". (You could even reverse the assumption - that sometime after the Red Junks, someone added that level of complexity, or that way of thinking to the art). Let's say, for example, if we allow the Shaolin/Chan assumption for a moment, it could be possible someone well versed in Shaolin/Chan learned WCK and came up with a variation that fit the art to that paradigm (not saying this is HFY, could be Pao Fa Lien "Northern Internal Shaolin", Vietnamese "Diamond Temple", or any of the branches claiming special Shaolin dispensation).

[CHS]

TjD and Jim are right here. So much about HFY formula and tracing its roots to Shaolin. But where is the transition and connection? Where were the knowledge that combined Shaolin arts and Ming's military knowledge to create HFY???

To date, I still haven't seen facts and proves of the above other than claims.

Also, one might wonder why the HFY was constantly questioned for its validity, superiority, etc. What aren't people in the forum in general receptive to them? Is that because of their inability to produce facts? Is that because of their claim being the "Mother of all WCK"? Is that because of their closed mind to discuss anything?

[reneritchie]

fa_jing - Taoist arts have similar hand shapes, even Muslim arts. Some call the hand shape "prayer hand", some call it "willow leaf", we call it "protecting hand". Non-chinese arts have the same hand shape, non-Asian sometimes as well. It's fairly core 8)

Grendel - You are correct.

Joy - Luk Sao is only found, historically, in Yuen Kay-San and Yip Man WCK (others have added it in recent times but didn't have it a decade or so ago). Yip Man's sihing don't use it, other branches of WCK (like Yik Kam, Pao Fa Lien, etc.) don't use it. So, while air bags might be part of long ancestory of automotive safety, they are newer relative to seat belts as standard equipment. Same with Luk Sao. It is a logical "next step" when you're familiar with the older platforms Jim mentions (found in Yik Kam, YKS/SN, Gulao, etc.). (I've seen some in Yip Man WCK use them as well, but I'm not sure if they're isolated examples of transmission or of cross-polination).

[Jim Roselando]

Geezer & Joy,


Adjustments that took it from being Horse, Point, Slide, Bow, Cross to "The first stage involves attainment of maximum efficiency in structural unity by aligning one's own body parts to provide an optimum mix of balance, strength and ease of use in relation to three-dimensional space"


Speculation (or theory) only. State some evidence as to what or who was involded in the adjusting. I look forward to hearing more since I know that this must be part of your reasoning for Allegence and you must have your reasons for Allegence! TIA


Hey Joy!


Jim- I enjoyed your large post.

Thanks! I enjoyed writing it!

But I dont know why you engage in this same old dialog of the deaf. No real historical links emerge-
just the same old catechism recitation.

I am a sucker for debate! LOL

A small but serious quibble- many styles have some sort of sticking principles
each from their own platforms. I am uncertain as to why you call luk sao- "newer".. specially when compared to Koo Lo circling.

The reasoning for the "newer" title is simply because other than YKS and Yip you cannot find it being done. Unless of course they have had some connection to YKS or YM. Other Leung Jan lineages do not make use of it (unless the above happened) and the Cho's do not make use of it so that is my reasoning. Nothing against it just some ideas I write when discussing.

Because a ancestor learned something from Leung Jan in his final years does not make something newer or older! A form of circling hand is there in Ip man wing chun as well as part of the chi sao continuum..

Point well taken. It does not make it older since all WC tools should be the same age! hehehe Perhaps I should have said a more recent development in the WC art??? Yet! I look at it like I wrote above. Where in YMWC is the circling hands that is done by the Cho's and Koo Lo etc.?


Look forward to more info. and chat!


Regards,

[reneritchie]

SPECIAL REQUEST

Could we please have ONE historical discussion thread where HFY isn't brought up and then argued? Can we stick to the information and not the labels? Can we be WCK talking to WCK, and not trumpeting or stomping any specific lineage (I almost typed religion... yeesh!)

[Jim Roselando]

Saluting Rene with respect for this post!


Like I said early on; This has nothing to do with "any lineage"! Its a discussion about Shaolin etc..


Cheers RR!

[Phenix]

JIm,

One time a junior guy post that Yik Kam lineage doesnt make sense or what... about where is the Chi Sau comes.....

You know, Emei system has something what it was called the Twisting Silk set... with is very Chi Sau type of stuffs... not to mention the application Kuit of Emei 12 zhuang ....


As for Shao Lin... need to see more evidents. Keep an open mind.


But,
Chinese alots of time using
"foo Hui" madarin. To link what it is not one pice. so we have to be watched real carefully. Normally, if one search into details one can almost find if it is a "foo Hui" case.

[TjD]

while it is impossible to prove wing chun's lineage or a tracing back to a particular source(s) of kung fu given the nature of verbal transmission and lack of general knowledge of the lines of kung fu, i think that at least by following some guidelines and finding a few pieces of appropriate information that a strong argument can be issued for a lineage or tracing of wing chun's transmission.

firstly, it seems like people are falling into two camps:

1. we see these similar movements/body structures so wing chun came from X

2. we see these philosophies/strategies similar so wing chun came from Y

neither of these are strong enough to show any correlation. in the first case, simply by looking at the students of yip man, many rather large variations in stance, hand placement and structure can be seen. in another generation how many variations of WCK will there be? how remotely close will they resemble the WCK yip man taught, what about the WCK that leung jan taught?

in the second case, we run into the problems that savi's post brought up. a new philosophy could or could not have any roots to its predecessor, we cannot be certain if it is a different fighting style with new strategies or philosophies, or something taken from the previous philosophy and modified.


what we do need is a mix of the two. we need corresponding information about philosphy AND body structure. we need a timeline such as: Initial Art A had philosophies (p1 ... pN), it had body structure/movments (s1 ... sN). WCK B came from Initial Art A because philosophy p3 was changed, which resulted in body structure/movements (s2, s5, s7) being modified. WCK C came from WCK B by realizing structure/movements (s4, s5, s20) were not efficient and modified them. WCK D took the modifications of body structure/movemnts of WCK C and decided philosophies p(p2, p5) were wrong and developed new philosophies. etc etc.

only by mixing philosophy and its causes on body structure, with knowledge of body structure and their improvements which may lead to changing philosophy/strategy can we develop an stronger guideline of how WCK came about. a story of sorts of wing chuns history. a large improvement over simple theories and speculations.

is this possible? no clue, i'm not a historian, just a practicioner :D

[yuanfen]

Rene-

Joy - Luk Sao is only found, historically, in Yuen Kay-San and Yip Man WCK (others have added it in recent times but didn't have it a decade or so ago).

((What others have or had --I dont know. Their loss if they didnt have it or use it. Luk Sao is fundamental in Ip Man wing chun. I doubt that he made it up.
This illustrates the problem of historical inductions. Ip Man's learning history isnt necessarily the same as his sihing. Different folks have different learning histories even in the same lineage.
Wing chun history remains the elephant with different shapes
as we go about describing it inferentially.. Frankly, I have yet to learn much from wing chun history debates. Sufficient
for me anyway and for learning wing chun that luk sao, different forms of chi sao and circling hands are all conceptually inter-related and enhance the understanding of timing and delivery of wing chun motions for the entire body including hands and feet.)).

Yip Man's sihing don't use it, other branches of WCK (like Yik Kam, Pao Fa Lien, etc.) don't use it.

((Too bad))

So, while air bags might be part of long ancestory of automotive safety, they are newer relative to seat belts as standard equipment.

((I missed the exactness of the analogy))

(I've seen some in Yip Man WCK use them as well, but I'm not sure if they're isolated examples of transmission or of cross-polination).

((No cross pollination that I can see- but conceptually linked imo.
The principles are in the forms ))


joy

[fa_jing]

wu sao: yeah the hand shape exists in other arts, but I'm not talking about knife hand/Karate. Specifically using the wu sao to cut through the center line, I've not seen that in any other art except Shaolin, specifically in the Lohan set, although my knowledge is limited.

To Grendel: A closed fist is a lot more common than a vertical knife hand that moves along the centerline to cut, deflect, brace, or interrupt. So I don't see your point at all. One is entirely common to all styles, and the other is specific to only a few styles.

[Geezer]

Jim Roselando Wrote>

I look forward to hearing more since I know that this must be part of your reasoning for Allegence and you must have your reasons for Allegence!

One question and I'm not getting upset......but are you interested in my reasoning for Allegence or why I think it's Shaolin?????

Sheldon;)

[Jim Roselando]

Geezer,


I am interested in anything you have to say just like I am interested in anything others have to say. You brought up Allegence in a past thread, so I would naturally assume that your beliefs were based on your your experience, thoughts and reasoning which would lead you to your Allegence. So, I am interested in the reasoning for your Alegence to the Shaolin theory that you tried to support in the past post. If I have assumed wrongly then thats my bad but I would havethought the two were one. Any info you would like to contribute would be appreciated. No ill intentions here my man!

:cool:


Cheers,

[t_niehoff]

I think we all need to start with the distinction between lineage (i.e., "line of persons") and (possible) influence. If X claims direct lineage to a person or place, the only way to prove that is by proving it. Claims of "we can prove it but choose, for whatever the reason, not to" aren't persuasive that the proof exists (and in my view, tend to support that it doesn't). Lack of proof means, in every other arena, simply not proved.

What I've heard so far is:

1. Some folks claim WCK comes from "Shaolin";

2. But we all agree that WCK doesn't "look" like "Shaolin";

3. These folks claim that it doesn't "look" like "Shaolin" because of a "paradigm shift" in Shaolin thinking that is only reflected in WCK (btw, couldn't any art make the same claims -- that they too descended from Shaolin, but don't look like it because of a 'shift in thinking'?).

Claims of Shaolin influence or "paradigm shifts" unfortunately don't tell us *when* these things allegedly occurred or even if they really occurred. The only way to show that a lineage descends from Shaolin is by lineage, otherwise any influence that an art claims could have been adopted recently, and not had any direct relationship.

BTW, recently a guy has come forward that claims to know the "lost" method of Hebrew sword-fighting. It was, he claimed, passed down to him from his grandfather, the last known practitioner, and had been kept secret for millenia. This was a superior form of sword-fighting that led to the Hebrews defeating the Romans at Masada. When it was pointed out to him that the Jews had lost at Masada, he contended that they really won but that the Romans had written the history with themselves as the winner! Nor is he deterred by such small details as his sword-fighting method includes fairly recent innovations in technology (that didn't exist 2000 years ago); for him, these innovations are just "rediscoveries of things the Hebrew's already knew". And yes, he has students. It's hard to argue with folks that make cliams that fly in the face of established facts, then rely on "secret" inside information that can't be proven to establish their claims. But at least we in WCK don't have a monopoly on the phenomenon.

Terence

[yuanfen]

I am giving special classes on the chakram and I have an impeccable lineage- beyond Xena its a family secret.

[FIRE HAWK]

Which art uses the Loi Lau Hoi Sung according to this nice article Chu Gar Family Southern Mantis . http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/readings/contemporary/columns/ritchie/pages05_rhymes.html

[FIRE HAWK]

What about the training exercises in the Wing Chun Pole form in my Moy Yat and William Chueng Wing Chun Six and a half point pole books they show exercises punching with the arrow punch in a low horse stance according to Moy Yat this is very importante in developing the arrow punch , why do they use a low horse stance that is typical of Shaolin styles . Also Chuka Shaolin Phoenix Eye Fist the art from Malaysia is said to come from Chi Sim Leow Fah Shih Koo was said to be the sister of Chi Sim and she learnd Shaolin from him maybe Chuka Shaolin is the style that is closer to original Shaolin than Hung Gar Chuka Shaolin has Fukien forms .

[FIRE HAWK]

I also have a book on Iron Ox Southern Mantis and some of the things in it look similar to Wing Chun to a certain point .

[FIRE HAWK]

If Wing Chun comes partialy from Fukien White Crane what about the Snake element in Wing Chun maybe the Snake element comes from some Fukien Snake style or perhaps some Hakka Snake style that was brought aboard the Red Boats or maybe a Shaolin Snake style or a Snake style from Cantonese Kwangtung Province ?

[TjD]

Originally posted by FIRE HAWK
What about the training exercises in the Wing Chun Pole form in my Moy Yat and William Chueng Wing Chun Six and a half point pole books they show exercises punching with the arrow punch in a low horse stance according to Moy Yat this is very importante in developing the arrow punch , why do they use a low horse stance that is typical of Shaolin styles .

learning this punch from the horse stance is part of our wing chun curriculum. from what i've heard it was imported from hung gar (it and the pole form). supposedly there was some duel with some famous wing chun guy and a hung gar guy (forgot the names - its late), and when the wing chun guy won they swapped pole forms for something else (i also forgot). anyhow i'll ask my sifu about it and repost and not sound as silly.

[yuanfen]

Firehawk asks-
very importante in developing the arrow punch , why do they use a low horse stance that is typical of Shaolin styles
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why not? Shaolin folks can sit ona stool. Should wing chun folks avoid sitting ona stool so that they will not be mistaken as Shaolin.?

[Phenix]

Originally posted by FIRE HAWK
If Wing Chun comes partialy from Fukien White Crane what about the Snake element in Wing Chun maybe the Snake element comes from some Fukien Snake style or perhaps some Hakka Snake style that was brought aboard the Red Boats or maybe a Shaolin Snake style or a Snake style from Cantonese Kwangtung Province ?



Is it a snake shape? or a snake body?
Is it a Crane Shape ? or a Crane body?

Different very different. Certainly can't find in Shaw's brother movies... Shape or body?

A rigid body with a Snake shape hand technics ?

or a snake silk like body which can take any shape and still capable of releasing inch Jing as needed? One has to go to goldern summit of emei to find this type of snake.

[yylee]

Originally posted by Phenix


or a snake silk like body which can take any shape and still capable of releasing inch Jing as needed? One has to go to goldern summit of emei to find this type of snake.

May be you'll find lots of monkeys there picking your pockets (they probably only take your VISA card) before you climb the Golden Summit, LOL!

here is Golden Summit :)
http://www.terragalleria.com/asia/china/emei-shan/emei-shan.html

BTW, the monkey story above is true, but perhaps they prefer hard cold USD.

Ermei Qigong, the snake and worm!

[mun hung]

Holy smokes! It took me a lonnggg time to read this (and the other) entire thread. Just a practitioner and not a historian, I must say I give you all alot of credit for doing the research. Especially Phenix.

It is definitely not my intention to fan flames here, but I am curious as to where/who Garrett Gee learned his kung fu from. IMHO - it looks alot like "Traditional" WC to me". (oops, I said the "T" word) My point is that these arts had to come from somewhere, but where? If it's a big secret - why share the art at all?

From my research I have found that the art of Wing Chun was brought to this planet by extraterrestrials and taught to "Lucy". :D

[Phenix]

with the beautifull scene, comes elegant art....

visualize...

a body feel like silk floating in the air. weight less and transparent.
a breathing with in hale and ex hale that is natural and never tense up any part of body forcefully.
a mind in theta wave state.


It is similar to growing or feeding flower... how can it be accelerate? how can an elegant beautiful flower to be growing or feeding with heart of vengen, hatret, resenment?


An inhale and an exhale which is as fresh and natural as an morning air.. how many year one has to grow it to get there?
without this one stop breathing on almost everything one does......only when it is as fresh, natural, and transperent... magic shows up...


The is no to be or not to be. it is just be it. and one will know.
the proper one will achieve as he likes. the not proper one will after decade give up the false and cultivate the proper...so to be or not to be... everyone will be there. some sooner some later... as soon as continous to cultivate and searching.... everything is ok.


the beautiful scene, the natural and fresh breathing,... the silk like body...



Let's make a three episodes movie........ on SLT.

enjoy..:D

[Phenix]

Sample draft translation of The operation of Heavenly Zhuang of Emei 12 Zhuang:



With a balance Qi, stand properly in equal shoulder stance.
Both palms rising foward, take the path of half Ying Yang
Upper arm same level with shoulder, and equal to chest witdh
The front elbow sligthly bent, echoing the position of the nose....

Equal shoulder stance widen to letter one stance....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
sample draft translation of Crane and Dragon Zhuang:


The nature of crane is no fighting
Thus, that is analogy to the virture of Pheonix
The agile dragon only shows its head
Thus, it is difficult to be predicted.
This is an application post
Hold the precept and bow to the guest


Technics essence is in neutralize and analysis
offence and defence both can be applied.....
facing many enermy, unify the dragon and crane
using the qi of ren and du medirians, bending foward,backward, and levitate to surpassed.


Leg preaching the eigth methods, finger probing hundreds of pressure points.
Using his shoulder, using enermy to subdue enermy
within ten thousand horses army war, one travelling with ease....


In the realm of Asura, compasionate is equiped
The disciple of Buddha, taking the precept of no killing.


--------------------------------------
sample draft translation of Small letter Zhuang:

Small Zhuang and Big Zhuang (posture),
Within the Kuit, there hidden the Zhuang.
Using the Forward and reverse complementary-ly
Never forget about this while Investigate and cultivating.
Heaven and Earth 12 postures,
Training hard (one) needs the small (details)
Using this advance Kuit
Ten Thousand leads source from the small ( details).

(From) stance to legs (motion) forward or backward
The upper three and hands motion or still
The middle three front bent, back bent, or side turn.
One must totally "master" this method (all must link into one pice)

Investigate the Small Posture while (prictice with) stillness and motion.
(its) Qi, Mai, on the surface and deep (within the body)

External application and subdue (heart) Demon (one own illusion )
The enermy was injured but not noticed.

Start the praticed with Heaven posture
Stand in the equal shoulder stance
The heart (mind) is balance (tranquile/peace) and the breathing is quite
Both eyes stares forward (far) away
Start with moving left hand forward
Settle the Ying Palm at shoulder high
Finger toward the sky then transform into the center Mai (Half Ying Half Yang medirian)
Sweep (reel) spiral while return to waist.
Five finger tracing the taichi circle.....

[Phenix]

sample draft translation of White crane method of Fujian







What is Zee Moo (center) return to center?
Zee Moo (center) return to the center means the center line is proper.

All operation must be internal as strong as steel, external soft as cotton, finger as mud, obey the center line while changing....


... the whole body, upper/middle/lower, three doors must be erect smoothly,
forward incoming can used the single wip.
if reverse, return to center, enter the door and breaks it,
meeting the bridge, break it,
strike as soon as empty ,..

[Phenix]

Miu Soon told Yim Yee " the art I thought you is not Ng Mui's White Crane, but my creation which fused my original art with Ng Mui's white crane.

I named it as The essense training in Detail or Siu Lien Tau.

After I passed away, take good care of it and passed it to people who is Trust worty." 1700's Kui county, Kwan Xi, China.



Spring, 2003, Sunnyvale, Nasa Mofet field , Northern California, United States of America...........................at 3am, the sun is raising......





Is it or is it not,
It is your decision...........

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Hendrik!



Brilliant stuff! Thanks for sharing!



Regards,

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Jim Roselando
Hey Hendrik!



Brilliant stuff! Thanks for sharing!



Regards,


Hey Jim,

You are welcome.





The episode 4 should be the episode of Yik Kam's legacy


When some of the 800 years old kuen kuit/ movements, some of the 300 years.......

Disregards of how people argue about Kuen kuit is not important..... for Chinese Martial art it is the soul.
Some one watching the croughing tiger and hidden dragon?



Via the kuen kuit everything can be traced.....

[kj]

Wow - thank you, Hendrik.
- kj

[mun hung]

Excellent work! Would love to hear more.

[Phenix]

KJ,

You are welcome.


Honestly, it is lots of late sifu Cho Hong-Choy's work. It is his will to give what he found to the WCners... I am just a messenger.... knowing not much.....

Who can reverse Heaven's will?
Who can take Heaven's credit to show the path?
That is heaven's will.


From Shang Hai's Dien Chun Dang to Canton's FatSan, From Emei Goldern Summit to Kui county of Kwan Xi. From Poon Yee of Canton to Eng Chun of Fujian... From Daoism to Buddhism. From White cloud Chan master to Fang Eng Chun. From Red Boat to California. From Song Dynasty to 2003.....





To find or not to find..
It is a matter of where to find and time only...






Mun Hung,

Sure there are more and more and more to come with evidents with translation.....with comentaly into details...

what is here is just a tip of an ice berg....

And there might be also a third minor components of WCK which..... The above two mother components have fill 90/80 percents....?





Now, I would sincerely ask the shao lin researchers to present thier research on the source and evolution and paradigmshift..... To support the hypothesis of Tan Sau Ng, Yat Chan, JeeSim, since some one has make a claim to be the oldest and so we need to have writting cross funtional "whole some, total, in one pice not just broken pice" Kuen Kuit, Kuen Po (operation note), legacy, and lineage information to learn about thier hypothesis.

A reason of can't be discuss is not good enough because if the 6th partriach of Chan can preach Chan in his Platform Sutra. Then, that have prof that even Chan can become writing prajna (wisdom) which can be transmitted via writing. He who is clear about a technology always can find a simple layman way to explain it.

Not to mention, the emei kuit as it is did link Buddhism with it and it constantly told the practitioner " compassionate... no killing".

I will be real happy to see any similarity of above two evidents pice from Shao Lin.... I am open.

[woseung]

“I think this is the wrong approach. If someone makes a lineage claim, like that they descend from so-and-so, then the only way to prove it is by showing lineage -- a line of persons to the person or thing they claim a connection to. HFY can't prove lineage back past Garrett Gee. End of story. If they can't even show lineage back one generation, they certainly can't expect to prove it back two generations or 30 generations. Don't take rediculous claims seriously; and to offer to debate these claims only acts to give the claims some respectability. HFY can claim anything, but we all know that arts can be, and have been, "molded" by "founders" to include what the want their art to reflect (if I want to claim a connection to Shaolin, I mold my art to include "Shaolin" terminology, shapes, Ch'an, pulp fiction, etc. and then claim it comes from Shaolin.). TN”

Interesting thread all around. I don’t know much about Hung Fa Yi, “Traditional”, “Modified” or whatever. I’m an objective person, not making personal attacks. The logic of the post quoted above gives me three reactions

1) He’s making a joke – and it worked, I’m laughing. He’s got a great sense of humor.
2) He’s threatened by Hung Fa Yi somehow.
3) His wires are all crossed. I’ve never met my grandfather, so I guess I’m not real ???

I learn lots by reading what everyone has to say. I don’t always agree but appreciate the thoughts anyway. Some of the Hung Fa Yi guys are pretty technical and clear. One of these days I’m gonna go visit to see in person. Seems pretty stupid to dismiss a whole lineage just cause you don’t get the answers you want. It’s just a matter of time before everything comes out into the opens. Making conclusions at such an early stage is premature. The post quoted above is from a mind in a state of denial rather than advising or suggesting a way to validate and move towards the truth. I would propose a format where the Internet is used to get the idea across and is then followed up by meeting in person, like the Arizona gathering. I remember reading about the Friendship Seminars. When’s the next one?

[yuanfen]

Hendrik-good stuff!!! On target. Again, please tell me where the first quoation is from-person and date if possible-Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

woseung sez (about TN's post on lineage):

1) He’s making a joke – and it worked, I’m laughing. He’s got a great sense of humor.
2) He’s threatened by Hung Fa Yi somehow.
3) His wires are all crossed. I’ve never met my grandfather, so I guess I’m not real ???

woseung-
on # 1. I dont think he is joking. If a lineage is claimed-- it should be minimally traceable- at least --the previous step or steps.

on #2. I dont think that he feels threatened.

on #3. The analogy does not hold. You didnt meet your grandfather per your statement. Therefore he didnt teach you anything hands on..
Lineage claimants clim specific fathers and grandfathers-sifu, sigung are very specific terms. Not abstractions..

O f course you can see for yourself. No problems.

[TjD]

hendrik that was great stuff! you made quite a convincing argument for where wing chun comes from.


now if someone can come up with a shaolin counter argument that would be great as well :)

[Phenix]

Originally posted by TjD
hendrik that was great stuff! you made quite a convincing argument for where wing chun comes from.


now if someone can come up with a shaolin counter argument that would be great as well :)


sure, certainly we have to be open to a proposal of shao lin.

I don't look at it as a counter argument.
why should it be counter? There is nothing to counter.
Just state the factatual evidents to discuss.

[Phenix]

[
Hendrik-good stuff!!! On target. Again, please tell me where the first quoation is from-person and date if possible-Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Joy,



The second episode?
that is from the White Crane Wing Chun Book

A book by the People Republic China Martial art association which has collection of old Fujian White Crane history, theory, old kuen kuit ect... email me for ISBN number.

[t_niehoff]

woseung wrote:

Interesting thread all around. I don’t know much about Hung Fa Yi, “Traditional”, “Modified” or whatever. I’m an objective person, not making personal attacks. The logic of the post quoted above gives me three reactions

1) He’s making a joke – and it worked, I’m laughing. He’s got a great sense of humor.

**I'm laughing too -- at folks taking these claims seriously! TN

2) He’s threatened by Hung Fa Yi somehow.

**LOL! Nope. I simply recognize that if you let folks spew nonsense often enough without challenging it many gullible begin to accept it as true. Your post lends support to my point. TN

3) His wires are all crossed. I’ve never met my grandfather, so I guess I’m not real ???

Do you think all it takes for us to accept someone's claim that they are a descendent of George Washington is their say-so (or saying they could prove it if they wanted to but they won't because it is a secret)? You do it by proving lineage -- you prove who your father was, who his father was, etc. back to GW. There is no other way. I practice WCK. I can trace my lineage back to Wong Wah Bo thru people that we know for certain existed and who taught each subsequent generation. HFY can't prove a generation prior to Garrett Gee, and if you can't prove who your parents are it is silly to claim you are descended from George Washington (at least if you want to be taken seriously). TN

I learn lots by reading what everyone has to say. I don’t always agree but appreciate the thoughts anyway. Some of the Hung Fa Yi guys are pretty technical and clear. One of these days I’m gonna go visit to see in person. Seems pretty stupid to dismiss a whole lineage just cause you don’t get the answers you want. It’s just a matter of time before everything comes out into the opens. Making conclusions at such an early stage is premature.

If it walks like a duck (TWC) and quacks like a duck (TWC), it seems prudent to conclude it is a duck (TWC). If other evidence comes to light, I'm open to it. But I don't think it will. Because it is a duck (TWC), even if some of the feathers are of a different color. TN

The post quoted above is from a mind in a state of denial rather than advising or suggesting a way to validate and move towards the truth. I would propose a format where the Internet is used to get the idea across and is then followed up by meeting in person, like the Arizona gathering. I remember reading about the Friendship Seminars. When’s the next one?

I've seen Garrett Gee and HFY in person. I've read the HFY articles and had discussions here and on other forums with HFY practitioners. My conclusion is that HFY is repackaged TWC and their unproven "historical claims" only reinforce that conclusion. Interestingly, these "historical claims" are being used to market "the system" along the same lines that Cheung used. If they want me, and others, to believe it is not TWC, they need to prove it -- with lineage. TN

Terence

[Savi]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
My conclusion is that HFY is repackaged TWC and their unproven "historical claims" only reinforce that conclusion. Interestingly, these "historical claims" are being used to market "the system" along the same lines that Cheung used. If they want me, and others, to believe it is not TWC, they need to prove it -- with lineage. TN
Terence,
Your conclusion couldn't be further from the truth. You have looked into the window of the Hung Fa Yi family, and have come to the conclusion that you know everything about us, based on your conclusion. Do you really think you are an expert on the HFY family? You have seen Grandmaster Gee, you have seen a little of HFY. I'm sorry my boy, but merely using sight and sound will not give you a full understanding of the system itself. No one can prove lineage other than through documentation and oral accounts. I, and many others have seen a photo of GM Ming Wang (GM Gee's sifu). There is documentation posted on the VTM website of HFY's ancestory. As far as I know, some names still are not verified, but again that's as far as I know.

The name 'Hung Fa Yi Wing Chuen Kuen' was given birth to our Wing Chun in or after 1646, the year the Hung Fa Ting was established. Beforehand, Weng Chun was already being developed and fielded on the battlefields of China, but was still called Weng Chun [from the Weng Chun Tong inside the Southern Shaolin temple.] It wasn't until 2+ years after the fall of the Ming Dynasty in 1644, when the name Hung Fa Yi was born.

[Savi]

Earlier I had reposted a section of a VTM article discussing the Wing Chun Formula. My intentions was not to offer connections to the Southern Shaolin temple, but to offer some insights to the reasoning of structural differences. My intentions were focused solely on the structural aspects Jim wanted to discuss. I shared with you all some information from my family which I thought would be helpful to that avenue.

As I understand it, the HFYWCF came from a culmination of two Hou Kuet (oral idioms). The upcoming book discusses further the foundational influence of these two idioms, which according to VTM research, dates back to the art's origin in the Southern Shaolin Temple. I'd like to discuss it, but I'd much rather do that after the book comes out when more people have had a chance to read and analyze it. There are many idioms in the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen which I'd like to share, but the context of them are not appropriate for this thread. Maybe I'll start a new thread for those interested in discussing HFY information... Hmmm.

[Scott Powers]

I can't listen to this stupidity any longer!

+++I've seen Garrett Gee and HFY in person. I've read the HFY articles and had discussions here and on other forums with HFY practitioners. My conclusion is that HFY is repackaged TWC and their unproven "historical claims" only reinforce that conclusion. Interestingly, these "historical claims" are being used to market "the system" along the same lines that Cheung used. If they want me, and others, to believe it is not TWC, they need to prove it -- with lineage. TN


Terence, It is clear that you are not qualified to make these ignorant statements. I don't recall either the TWC family or the HFY familiy confirming that you have any measure of a grasp on either of these systems. From the articles that I have read and all of the information that I have seen on HFY and TWC they seem to be alot different and share no more simularities then any other two systems of WCK. I mean SLT,CK,BJ are in both systems how different can they be at first look? As an outsider looking in and from the articles I have read personally the HFY is far more technical information. I admit I have not seen alot of either system. But I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I know enough on either of these systems to post some of the things that yourself and some of the others are saying here. You folks act like it is so strange that WCK came from Shaolin. How many chinese styles claim shaolin roots? But in the more popular story Ng mui was thought to be a shaolin nun! yours and some of the other's problem with HFY seems to be on a personal level. It would be appreciated if you and your friends took that up with HFY/VTM people with personal E-mails, phone calls or just pay them a visit and have deep discussion on these subjects! but this junk seems to constantly get in the way of better quality post with the true intent on sharing not bickering.
You openly post attacking what Garret Gee presents as his family lineage. it is one thing to raise questions but you choose to do it in the form of an insult . My Sifu always told me that you should respect all styles and instructors of martial arts. This reflects on you not the style or instructor! Not every one will take what you and your friends do lightly! I'm suprised more has not been done. But I credit them for putting up with it thus far. From what I read a few post ago your teacher has a very questionable past and possibly a history of stealing information presenting it as his own. I think there was also an issue with him not ever given the blessing of becoming a Sifu. This might be the reason he does not like to use the term "Sifu" to discribe teacher of Chinese kung fu. Now if I keep mentioning this would you be friendly and polite with your response? I use these as an example of the fact that every teacher and lineage can be questioned and disrespected. To ask these personal questions in public can only be taken as an insult. As a third party watching this I can say that it only reflects on the person launching the insults. I have no intentions of going back and fourth with you so fill free to reply but, You really should think about what I'm trying to tell you here.

Scott P

[dbulmer]

Savi,

The last post was uncalled for - only TN knows for sure if he's quackers :)

[t_niehoff]

Scott Powers wrote:

"From the articles that I have read and all of the information that I have seen on HFY and TWC they seem to be alot different and share no more simularities then any other two systems of WCK. I mean SLT,CK,BJ are in both systems how different can they be at first look?" SP

Let everyone make up their own mind. Why doesn't the VTM post HFY and TWC forms side-by-side? Then they can explain how the forms which look almost exactly alike (even different Yip Man students have more variety in their forms), contain Yip Man signature moves, many TWC signature moves (like the hopping entry technique) and drills specific to, i.e., invented by, Yip Man lineage, etc. are two distinct "systems." TN

"You openly post attacking what Garret Gee presents as his family lineage. it is one thing to raise questions but you choose to do it in the form of an insult" SP

If I suddenly began claiming that I knew "the oldest form of WCK", a style that I say that I learned from some mysterious source that couldn't be confirmed (but nevertheless I contended had been around for millenia, though no one heard of it -- oh, and BTW, Savi, having a photo that I claim is my sifu doesn't prove anything: again it all relies on taking one person's word for everything), I shouldn't be surprised if people question me. And if that "oldest form of WCK" had the same forms, had many of the same unique drills, and shared terminology with, as say the Augustine Fong system (who has added many "signature moves" and extensions to his forms to make them quite distinctive), I wouldn't be surprised if folks pointed out that obvious similarity and asked me to explain it. TN

Is that an insult? I'm sorry but I don't think that just because someone calls themselves "grandmaster" or makes some claims of being a distinctive lineage means they are entitled to be believed or respected. Respect is earned. Before I had seen Garrett and HFY, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. What I saw, provided more evidence for me that all he's teaching is beefed-up TWC. I could be wrong, and if I see or hear something substantial that so indicates, I'll change my mind. If HFY wants to be accepted as a legitimate lineage, IMO they need to do what every other legitimate lineage has done: prove lineage. Then explain how HFY comes to have the same forms, etc. as TWC. Until they answer these serious questions, they can't expect their claims to be taken seriously. TN

Ffinally, it doesn't matter what my skills are, what my lineage is, what my sifu has or has not done -- none of that has anything to do with whether HFY is TWC or not. Attacking me won't answer that question. In fact, I think these attacks just demonstrate that you can't answer the question (if you could, you'd just prove me wrong and that would be that). Since you can't answer the question favorably, you attack the person asking the question. Consider this: if I claimed YKS WCK, or any other legitimate lineage, was nothing more than Yip Man WCK, a YKS practitioner could respond and refute my assertion very easily (and wouldn't need to attack me). Why can't HFY do the same? Why should they have special treatment? TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Some opinions FWIW-

1. In different ways and in different places and threads- attacking
Hendrik or Terence or any one else personally does nothing to buttress the logic of any position. Quite different lineages are involved between Hendrik, Terence and myself--- but neither Hendrik or Terence have been "wandering"- in fact quite focused
on their individual theses. Questioning one's ethics and the other's mental condition are uncalled for and appear to be desperate substitutes for logic and evidence.

2. If the HFY folks want to do Shaolin revisionist history there are
Shaolin forums where they can get peer review of sorts. Aside from that if the revisionist history was subjected to a truly anonymous peer review among competent historians- that would be a disciplined way to go.

3. If there is a separate HFY thread or forum without reference to
Ip Man wing chun- I would wish them well and would make no comments whatsoever. And, I have no problem with anyone wishing to study HFY, JKD, TKD, Wing Chun Do or anyother martial
activity or sport.

4. But claims of superiority to other wing chun or "purer" ancestry
or "more scientific" foundations will and should invite commentary.

[KPM]

For what its worth.....I have to speak up in support of Terrence. I don't think he is being either rude or unreasonable. I agree with everything he has said and have many of the same reservations about what I have read and seen of HFY that he expresses. Until someone can clearly show why HFY and TWC are so similar, I will have a hard time taking the HFY people seriously. There IS a connection there somewhere. Until that is explained somehow, any "history" provided by the HFY people is suspect. Maybe I am being unreasonable as well, or maybe I am "quakers" like Terrence, but for my logical, reasoning mind that is how is has to be. Anyone can make up a snazzy story. The wing chun world has been exposed to more than one questionable marketing ploy in the past. I have to take the HFY story as more of the same until they can provide evidence or explanations to the contrary. No disrespect intended. That's just the way it is for me, and obviously for many others. Sorry for contributing to the "hijacking" of this thread. But I felt the need to say that.

Keith

[desertwingchun2]

Terrence - Going back to an earlier conversation we had, If posting on the HFYWC system is such a waste of your time why do you continue? Everyone is well aware of your opinions. Obviously attaching your name to HFYWC discussions is one of your favorite online activities. You continue to try and challenge the structures of HFYWC and fail everytime. This TWC/HFY angle will fail just like your previous attempts. In fact anytime you challenge the HFYWC structure it will fail because you have no knowledge regarding the nature of HFYWC. Everything you base your arguements on is form. As we all know form is empty. Any arguements you attempt are still born.

Why doesn't the VTM post HFY and TWC forms side-by-side?- TN

explain how the forms which look almost exactly alike- TN

TWC signature moves (like the hopping entry technique) -TN

Then explain how HFY comes to have the same forms, etc.-TN

Form, Form, Form, Form ...... move beyond form !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

San sao thinking shows the level of your attainment. This is not an "attack" on you but an observation.

To illustate the difference of HFYWC and TWC three quick illustrations - Saam Moh Kiu, Kiu Sao and Sup Ming Dim.

To my knowledge these are not taught in the TWC system. Also these go beyond form. If you do not understand dont blame me for your ignorance. If you truly wanted to see the difference these three are more than enough.

KPM -

Until someone can clearly show why HFY and TWC are so similar, I will have a hard time taking the HFY people seriously. - KPM

TWC people and HFYWC people can definetly see the differences. The point is the internet is no place to learn Kung Fu. If you want to know the difference you need experience to draw from. As far as you taking "the HFY people seriously" all I can say is - anyone can tell you what an apple tastes like. But you can only know the taste when you bite into it yourself.

-David

[Mike Mathews]

Terrance,

Don't you get it? It's not that no one can explain the HFY lineage to you... nobody needs to. There are pictures of Gee Sifu's teacher (Dr. Wong Ming), as well as pictures of his Sifu. The HFY lineage is very clear from the shaolin temple, to Cheung Ng, to Grandmaster Garret Gee, the eigth generation succesor. It is Gee Sifu's method that the students get the precise details of both the history and technical aspects of the system.

None of the WCK systems can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition. Does that mean that they all don't exist? No. If you can't go back and verify the Niehoff lineage back 7 to 10 genarations does that mean that you don't exist?

Again, the HFY people don't need to prove anything to you. The proof is in the systsem. It's too bad that you are so eager to dismiss it that you will never be able to appreciate it.


Mike

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Mike Mathews



The HFY lineage is very clear from the shaolin temple, to Cheung Ng, to Grandmaster Garret Gee, the eigth generation succesor. It is Gee Sifu's method that the students get the precise details of both the history and technical aspects of the system.



None of the WCK systems can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition. Does that mean that they all don't exist? No. If you can't go back and verify the Niehoff lineage back 7 to 10 genarations does that mean that you don't exist?

Mike

Mike,

You are making a big claim here. Who says none of the WCK system can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition?

What position are you in to make this type of Claim for all WCK system? How much have you seen?

From IP Man GM, YKS GM, Fung GM, Cho On GM, None make those claim What makes you have the right to claim such?


Now, that might not be your lineage. So, don't make a conclusion for other lineages.


HFY lineage has its own right and to be respected. However, When HFY follower making broad claim for all wck system be it in Magazine article or this post.

Is that proper?


Is making Broad claim for other WCK lineage reflex the teaching of HFY?

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
<<What position are you in to make this type of Claim for all WCK system? How much have you seen? >>HS

**Hendrik, Why don't you answer your own question?

<<From IP Man GM, YKS GM, Fung GM, Cho On GM, None make those claim What makes you have the right to claim such?>>HS

**Hendrik, Why are you speaking for all WCK?



Rolling Hand,

Clock is ticking. your data is needed.



Mike is the one makes the claim. I am the one who ask question.
Can't even ask question?

I refer to IP Man GM, YSK GM, Fung GM, and Cho ON GM individually specifically NOT ALL WCK. Please get that straight.

If you disagree, then show which of the GM above making Claim similar Mike?

[Phil Redmond]

Hi Jim,
You mixed Cantonese and Mandarin in your post.

"Siu is more akin to the principle of Zhuang!"

I learned to speak Cantonese in order to understand WC since it was taught in Cantonese. Can you explain what Zhuang is?

[Chango]

Scott,
Welcome to the board. I have to say that I share your feelings on the posting methods of some on this forum. I also agree with the fact that Terence is clearly not qualified to make such calls on the comparison of HFY and TWC. I find his statments on the subject to be reckless and some what inflamatory. I also strongly feel that if he and a few others have personal issues they should handle them in a personal and private manor. But of course like a drug adict one cannot fix a problem that he or she is not willing to face. welcome to the board anyways.


Terence,
It is very clear that you are not qualified to make claims of HFY being TWC "repackaged". If you really understood what you had only viewed once at a friendship siminar and quite possibly the articles you may have read. Your understanding of what HFY seems to be quite distorted. As a HFY family member I can tell you this. As a matter of fact I would go on a limb and say that from how you discribe HFY there isn't a single member of HFY family will say that you have any sort of idea as to what is HFY. So from that alone I can say that you do not know what you are talking about. Your point of reference is not clear so your judgement is clouded. This would also give rise to the question on how much TWC do you know and understand? I hope it is more then what you have demonstrated on your knowlege of HFY. What TWC family member can varify your understanding of TWC? does your knowlege of this subject come from Robert's stance changing siminar? or can you share more on your personal accounts and experiences with a qualified TWC teacher?

You and this "Yip Man signature move" business. ROFLOL! I have done quite a bit of home work on Yip man and the different experiences and stories that each of his students would share while learning. I cannot say that I remember Yip man ever saying that he had a "signature move". Here we go again with your speculation. It seems that we are back at the same topics and discussion as almost a year ago. No one has to prove any thing to you. Go ahead thinking the world is flat. It's not the problem of the VTM.


Chango (saat geng sau)

[KPM]

Until someone can clearly show why HFY and TWC are so similar, I will have a hard time taking the HFY people seriously. - KPM

TWC people and HFYWC people can definetly see the differences. The point is the internet is no place to learn Kung Fu. If you want to know the difference you need experience to draw from. As far as you taking "the HFY people seriously" all I can say is - anyone can tell you what an apple tastes like. But you can only know the taste when you bite into it yourself.

-David [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi David:

There are definite differences between what is taught by some today even though each learned directly from Yip Man. Differences can arise over time from individual preferences and other influences. It is the similarities that remain that suggest connections. There are just too many similarities between HFY and TWC that no other lineages seem to share. How those similarities came to be needs to be explained. One can look at Leung Ting's WCK and Augustine Fong's WCK and see some very definite differences. But one can also see the similarities that connect them and make them both variations of Yip Man WCK. I and others have seen enough of both HFY and TWC to recognize that there are many similarities that suggest there has to be a connection. One can argue that we need to study the method itself to learn its inner workings in order to be able to judge, but I would say something so superficial and obvious as choreography of forms is hard to deny and doesn't need a "master's degree" to see. As far as your apple analogy.....sure you have to taste it yourself to really know the flavor, but that is not what we are talking about. If someone tried to tell me that the apple grew from a cherry tree, tasting it isn't going to convince me of their argument. I would say "it sure looks like other apples I have eaten that grew from apple trees...not cherry trees. So show me the cherry tree that grew this apple." I stand by my original statements. Something about HFY just doesn't add up. Until someone clearly explains the HFY/TWC connection, I will have a hard time taking the HFY historical claims seriously.

Keith

[t_niehoff]

Mike Matthews wrote:

Don't you get it? It's not that no one can explain the HFY lineage to you... nobody needs to. MM

I agree no one needs to explain it to me -- until they start calling it "truth". All lineages have their legendary history, and we don't spend time arguing about them here because everyone recognizes that. It is only HFY that takes it seriously and wants to convince the world that their "history" is genuine. Well, if that's what they want, then I'm saying there is only one way to do it. TN

There are pictures of Gee Sifu's teacher (Dr. Wong Ming), MM

How do you know that it is some guy named Wong -- because Gee told you. Or that he was a HFY practitioenr -- because Gee told you. How about the history -- because Gee told you. All we have is Gee's word for everything. That may be good enough for you but it is not for me. And certainly it isn't enough to rewrite the history books with. TN

as well as pictures of his Sifu. The HFY lineage is very clear from the shaolin temple, to Cheung Ng, to Grandmaster Garret Gee, the eigth generation succesor. It is Gee Sifu's method that the students get the precise details of both the history and technical aspects of the system.

Of course, because Gee tells you. TN

None of the WCK systems can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition. Does that mean that they all don't exist? No. If you can't go back and verify the Niehoff lineage back 7 to 10 genarations does that mean that you don't exist? MM

No, it proves that most likely WCK began on the Red Boats (which explains why all legitimate lineages can trace themselves back to then and no further). You guys can't even prove back one generations, let alone to the Red Boats. TN

Again, the HFY people don't need to prove anything to you. The proof is in the systsem. It's too bad that you are so eager to dismiss it that you will never be able to appreciate it. MM

Ah, yes, the "proof is in the system" argument. Too bad there is no independent proof. If you guys want to believe Garrett that's fine with me -- people believe all kinds of things. Just don't expect to be taken seriously until some serious questions are answered. TN

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

Chango writes:

It is very clear that you are not qualified to make claims of HFY being TWC "repackaged". If you really understood what you had only viewed once at a friendship siminar and quite possibly the articles you may have read. Your understanding of what HFY seems to be quite distorted. As a HFY family member I can tell you this. As a matter of fact I would go on a limb and say that from how you discribe HFY there isn't a single member of HFY family will say that you have any sort of idea as to what is HFY. So from that alone I can say that you do not know what you are talking about. Your point of reference is not clear so your judgement is clouded. This would also give rise to the question on how much TWC do you know and understand? I hope it is more then what you have demonstrated on your knowlege of HFY. What TWC family member can varify your understanding of TWC? does your knowlege of this subject come from Robert's stance changing siminar? or can you share more on your personal accounts and experiences with a qualified TWC teacher? C

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or master of TWC and HFY to see what is plain before your eyes -- you only need to not let them get clouded. As I said in my post, let folks decide for themselves: have the VTM post TWCs and HFYs forms side-by-side and let people compare (how do they come to have essenitally the same forms? Not even two Yip Man lineages have the same dummy form!). BTW, I'm not the only one seeing the remarkable similarities -- anyone that has studied TWC or seen both TWC and HFY (and isn't part of your "group") sees them as well. For example, how do they come to have the same dummy form (with the hopping entry technique)? You can ignore it, and pretend it doesn't exist, but the questions will remain. (Consider my original post with the A. Fong analogy -- imagine when the similarities to Fong's forms was pointed out to me and all I did was say "there are no similarities, you don't know what you are talking about!"). The refusal to answer the question is revealing in itself. TN

You and this "Yip Man signature move" business. ROFLOL! I have done quite a bit of home work on Yip man and the different experiences and stories that each of his students would share while learning. I cannot say that I remember Yip man ever saying that he had a "signature move". Here we go again with your speculation. It seems that we are back at the same topics and discussion as almost a year ago. No one has to prove any thing to you. Go ahead thinking the world is flat. It's not the problem of the VTM. C

I agree no one has to prove anything to me or anyone -- until you begin making the claims that HFY is making (compare "HFY is the oldest form of WCK" with "I don't have to prove anything to you"; "HFY comes from Shaolin" with "I don't have anything to prove to you"; etc.). If you expect and want folks to believe them, or even take them seriously, you need to provide evidence. You can call it "history" but we all know it is just Garrett's story (and not a particularly clever one: too many holes). You can call HFY the oldest form of WCK or the original WCK but we all know it looks just like TWC (with added "stuff", which, btw only takes it further away from WCK). And you can go around doing what is essentially Yip Man WCK (HFY) and say there is no such thing as "signature moves" but any serious practitioner knows they do exist and what many of them are. So until these things are addressed, there is no point taking HFY's assertions, like that WCK came from Shaolin, seriously. TN

And yes, I understand that the forms aren't application (where the WCK really is) but they are the "texts" and lineages are defined by whose "text" (form, drills, etc.) we use to develop ourselves. We can compare "texts", and the things within the texts that make them unique or particular (signature moves). The odds of TWC and HFY having essentially the same forms (text) while developing independently is astronimical. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Oral tradition and documented history are not the same thing, and everyone, of every lineage, should be ethical enough to clearly distinguish one from the other (whether it be in the discussion of Ng Mui or Yat Chum, Shaolin or Emei, 50 years ago or 100 years ago).

Old photos are tricky business. I think some may remember the problems with Leung Ting's photo of Wong Fei-Hung (turned out to be one of Wong's sons, I think), or the one of wooden dummy training on the boats (that turned out to be a still from an old Hung Ga Kung Fu movie). In most cases, martially speaking, there are at least two ways to cross-check - the martial family (students) and the real family (children). For example, photos of Yip Man (were he not so famous and there so many) could be checked with Lun Gai, Lok Yiu, etc. etc. and with Yip Chun or Yip Ching. Likewise, photos of Cheung Bo and Yuen Kay-San could, until very recently, be checked with Sum Nung, his early students and grand students who met them, and with Ah Chut or Yuen Jo-Tong. A third and fourth way would be through professional or social circles, such as the medical association where they worked, the restaurant where they took tea. Martial masters, doctors, chefs, or other prominent people were well regarded and it should be no trouble at all to get multiple sources to verify who a person was, and what they did.

And its important for everyone to remember that its just a kung fu lineage. People might get caught up in the romance of Shaw bros. flicks, or take it on as a replacement family of sorts, but at the end of the day, no one will live or die or suffer major life-altering trauma as the result of the martial art they practice coming from Shaolin or not, from the Red Junks or not, from 1850 or 1990. And if it does, you need therapy. Really. That's not a cheap shot, that's a reality check. Passion is fine. Love for your hobbies is fine. But it's a trivia question in the end and not even final jeopardy material. It's as dire as knowing the ink composition used 100 years ago in apalachian folk pottery. Master the art, don't let it master you, and for gawd sakes, sexual addiction was bad enough in the 90s, we don't need obsessive compulsive martial behavioral disorder NOS in the 00s.

Enjoy. Chat. Sip tea. If you feel anger, get therapy.

[reneritchie]

Here's a personal story:

When I was in high school I wasted 3 years learning "karate". The teacher claimed that, in addition to Karate, he'd learned "Shaolin" from a Vietnamese monk named Master Shu while living in a special compound in LA. He had a a picture of "Master Shu" in a monk outfit (the red and yellow one) striking a pose. He claimed he learned a lot from "Master Shu", including Drunken Monkey.

I had another friend at the time who was a shodan in a traditional Japanese Jujitsu Ryu. He told me right away the guy sounded fishy and that I should look elsewhere. I didn't listen to him, and we'd argue about it a lot. I ended up helping the "Karate" teacher out a lot, around the school, etc. and had become fiercely defensive. It caused a lot of strain between myself and my friend.

A while later I saw some kung fu flicks with Drunken Monkey, and read some mags and books, and asked the "karate" teacher about it. He said I must have misheard him, he really did Dunken Mantis. Later, when I asked him about that, he again claimed I misheard him, that he did "real" dunken boxing, but you had to be really drunk to learn him, just like "Master Shu" had shown him.

One day I was leafing through an MA mag and was startled to find a picture of "Master Shu". Not just a picture, but the exact same picture. Only the person in the picture wasn't named "Shu" but had a different name, and the picture was from a tour of the Shaolin Monks in France (we had French MA mags back then as well).

Another time, after telling me he spoke both Cantonese and Mandarin fluently, he went to Chinatown for some Qigong lessons and asked if I knew a translator. I asked him why he'd need them. He said the man spoke mandarin and he only knew Cantonese. Later he needed a translator for a Cantonese Tai Gik teacher as well. (Not that he learned from either man more than a couple weeks).

I still defended him, mind you. I was young and I'd made an emotional investment, and there was pride (not wanting to admit I was wrong), denial (not wanting to be wrong), and all sorts of other things at play. Even when you suspect or know something for yourself, its amazing how you can still champion the reverse.

Eventually I was lucky enough to meet my WCK sifu, and I never looked back. Of course, I was branded a traitor by the "karate" teacher, and his new students were told all sorts of stories, and were promised they'd learn the really real secret stuff, since they were much more worthy. They didn't though. Even the die hard, fight-for-a-dime-to-defend-him types didn't. Turned out the "karate" teacher had unsavory business practices and a long history of them, and he skipped town just before it would have turned really ugly for him, leaving his school (and its back rent) to a new student (it close soon thereafter), and various bills to others (he'd put other students names on the phone, on various network marketing schemes he ran under the school's umbrella, etc.)

A martial arts teacher is part parent, part mythical hero to his/her students, and its a relationship all to easily abused. Students can become near-slaves to unscrupulous teachers, losing their time, their money, their reputations, their self-respect.

Of course there are also excellent, highly ethical teachers who have mature, mutually beneficial relationships with their students. There's a local guy here who takes in at-risk students, helps them turn the corner, then pays them to teach classes for others, giving them their first real job and chance to build self respect and real-world skills.

Unfortunately, they don't wear signs. For a prospective student, unless they have some previous knowlegdge, its hard to distinguish the man who trained for 18 years at Songshan Shaolin from the derranged con who says he's master of 18 systems but never left the county. And, perversely, the latter can be even more charismatic, more appealing to some.

So, when people seek support for statements, evidence for claims, foundation for arguments, this is what's behind it. Anyone can say anything, and on the internet, everything. It's nothing personal. It's professional, and that's what this world will force the real deals to become. Professional.

[Grendel]

Originally posted by t_niehoff

The odds of TWC and HFY having essentially the same forms (text) while developing independently is astronimical. TN

Given all the commentary on how similar the two studies are, I'd say that the odds are apparently very good. :p Just kidding. I see what you're saying.


Originally posted by reneritchie
Here's a personal story:

I still defended him, mind you. I was young and I'd made an emotional investment, and there was pride (not wanting to admit I was wrong), denial (not wanting to be wrong), and all sorts of other things at play. Even when you suspect or know something for yourself, its amazing how you can still champion the reverse.
(much deleted text)
So, when people seek support for statements, evidence for claims, foundation for arguments, this is what's behind it. Anyone can say anything, and on the internet, everything. It's nothing personal. It's professional, and that's what this world will force the real deals to become. Professional.

Thanks for sharing this story. Citing it as a response from the archives would address a number of issues as they come up on the forum. BTW, I had a very similar experience or three before finding my sifu. :) All a student can do is ask a lot of questions about what he's being taught and about who is doing the teaching. Then, it's caveat emptor.

Regards,

[passing_through]

Jim,

1) I tend to believe that WC doenst have as many similarities to the so-called Shaolin arts (in body structure/form pattern/numerology/etc.) as it would have to a Zhan Zhuang combo (fukien crane).

Until a detailed analysis of Zhan Zhuang and/or Fuiken Crane, in addition to Shaolin arts, presented through a side-by-side comparison is completed, all there can be are beliefs.

2) The South Mantis I practiced was more of a "Hard Bow" as Hendrik put it. They had practice with holding the breath and pressing the ribs down (dip gwat gong) and openning the ribs. They had a more arched slightly forward lean to the body which was more similar to Dragon, Whitebrow, White Crane etc.. WC does not lean forward or backward. It stands neutral and doesnt force the breath (or reverse it as in Bak Mei) with pumping the Dip Gwat Gong. While there may be similarity with the hands that is not enough to say its just modern Shaolin.

Wing Chun doesn't lean forward because it comes from the 12 Zhuang?... interesting, yet, Hendrik's own post states

"using the qi of ren and du medirians, bending foward,backward, and levitate to surpassed."

and

"The middle three front bent, back bent, or side turn.
One must totally "master" this method (all must link into one pice)"

Interesting to think that Centerline and standing upright comes from Hendrik's POV, considering that his own writings state to the effect for leaning.

3) Which so-called Shaolin art (Mantis,Dragon,Whitebrow,White Crane) uses the Loi Lau Hoi Sung principle and has it written in their Kuit? To do this one would need Sung as their base and the so-called Shaolin arts do not base their training around this Zhuang concept.

This is a based on your assumption for #2 above. HFY and Chi Sim both make use of Loi Lau Hoi Sung as a minor concept.

4) The so-called Shaolin I did (and others I have exchanged with) contracted the muscles during punching and other methods. Wing Chun does not contract the muscles.

*giggle* I'm sure you didn't mean that how it reads. If you don't contract muscle, how do you move? ^_-

5) The so-called Shaolin uses the heal to toe alignment and cat types stance for flanking. They never shift. Wing Chun does not make use of this foot alignment and has shifting as part of its footwork.

Careful about what you claim about alignment and the use of shifting - HFY footwork doesn't "shift" per se. There is a very small degree of adjustment due to energy but stepping does involve a toe/heel relationship when stepping - supported by other structures of the body.

6) The so-called Shaolin make use of a Doy Jong type strength sets and other isometric (or resistance training) two man training for power development where as WC would never do this. Isometrics is opposite of the principle of Yin Sun as WC makes use of.

At what level are you speaking? And for all lineages? No Wing Chun makes use of Doy Jong type strength sets?

As for your questions/opinions on points 7, 10, & 11, think of this:

Wing Chun was supposed to be created as a system to counter all styles. Could this be accomplished by using old technology? Meaning, the "traditional" Shaolin 3 step, 4 angle was considered outdated and Wing Chun would have to be something new.

There are two things to consider when looking for Shaolin connections: the first Sim Jung and the second is body structure.

Starting with Sim Jung, HFY and Chi Sim both share a three-leveled approach to training/understanding. In a rudimentary view: beginner/intermediate/advanced. This three-leveled approach is used to bring deeper levels of understanding and awareness about combat, reality, life, and self. This approach/awareness is something I find completely lacking from discussion on Ip Man, Yuen Kay-San, or Koo Lo Wing Chun lineages. There is a great deal of technical discussion but very little, very general or no spiritual discussion.

Looking at body structure, Chi Sim makes reference to centerline while expressing it through heaven, human, and earth body postures. Most Wing Chun makes use of human body structures - standing upright, hands in front of the body.

Hung Fa Yi body structures are based on the Saam Dim Yat Sin principle. From this principle, the foundation of the system flows. It is this principle, the Saam Dim Yat Sin, that breaks HFY away from Shaolin body structures. Saam Dim Yat Sin is required to discuss efficiency and economy of motion. Why train standing still? To find the most efficient movement in a given time and space, you have to start by removing variables. If two opponent's are both moving, they will fine loose moments of efficiency that are elusive, giving rise to the term "lucky timeframe." By standing still, you have a set body posture from which to gauge any action and measure the efficiency. In Chan terms, you have a focus from which to begin to understand yourself as time/space/energy.

From the Saam Dim Yat Sin, the formula was created. This continued the evolution away from Shaolin body structures. By knowing the formula, you have a grid to map out both your motions and your opponent's motions. This changes the training of Kiu Sau due to knowing when you've moved too far, a time/space distortion that opens up your energy for your opponent to manipulate it. It is on this formula that HFY can be claimed to be a science.

Now, going back to Sim Jung, the formula expresses time/space/energy as a mode, a faat, for reference to reality. First, you have reality, then you have no reality, then you do. The formula takes you into the "you have no reality" stage by giving you a tool to break apart reality and see it for what it is, moment by moment. Once you understand the formula, it goes away and you simply are.

So, to ask about shapes, you have to know the purpose. HFY bridges both form and function, uniting the two in harmony by means of the formula. HFY doesn't look like Shaolin - and it shouldn't. However, the change in shape is meaningless as to the essence of Chan. Sigung Gee uses Chan to teach HFY; he uses HFY to teach Chan - that's the essence of Shaolin. Not in kicking, punching or standing.

Now, if you want to talk about looks, then from the HFY POV, there is only HFY and nothing else. I make this statement not out of ego but out of understanding of the system. The formula is the ultimate reference - if you have the exact reference and structure, it is HFY (regardless of name). If you are off the formula, no matter what you call it, it's not HFY. That's how clear the system is to its students. People on the outside want to say HFY is similar to TWC. Not to my eye. The closest WC to HFY is Chi Sim Weng Chun. Both are Sim Jung arts.

8) The so-called Shaolin has the 3,18,108 numerology for their forms where as WC does not use numerology for forms titles. Why and how would they have dropped this to come up with the name Siu Lin Tao? Siu is more akin to the principle of Zhuang!

In HFY Siu Nim Tau (idea) is the origin, not Siu Lim Tau (drilling) - also interesting that Ip Man also made use of Siu Nim Tau, not Siu Lim Tau. Siu Nim Tau deals with understanding yourself, the universe, and reality, expressed physically through the formula. Standing still was due to the Saam Dim Yat Sin principle and the formula. Further, how would adopting the use of the Zhuang require the Shaolin to change numerology? You don't highlight that change well in the quote above.

9) The so-called Shaolin arts do not make use of a sticky hands platform like the older WC does. I am not talking about the newer Luk Sao but reather the Circling Hands chi sao that Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo, the Cho's preserve, Yuen Kay San also has etc.. This type of sticky hands is more in tune with a Taiji Toy Sho but more effective thanks to the south fist element.

As for your comments about Chi Sau... Shaolin systems make use of Kiu Sau in the form of X Star Training/Blocking, where X is a number such as 3,5,9,etc. This is considered a Fau Kiu level of combat bridge training in HFY. Some Shaolin systems make use of Kiu Sau as a form of reactional training with a higher emphasis on skill development - using the forearms to engage the enemy (Mantis, Dragon, Baak Mei, Weng Chun, others). This is considered a Saan Kiu level of combat bridge training. Wing Chun makes use of Chi Sau training - Chi Sau exists on a different timeframe than Kiu Sau due to the range and theories involved. Additionally, Chi Sau does not allow for range to be compromised, unlike the Teui Sau of Tai Gik (Taiji). Meaning, Tai Gik allows energy to come close to the body in terms of range before redirection - this is a violation in HFY (and also for my Ip Man training as well). In terms of HFY, allowing your range to be compromised opens up access to your center of gravity.

For a more technical discussion on Kiu Sau/Chi Sau evolution, we'll have to get together in person. This is due to the level of context required to understand the development process. Kiu Sau is far more involved than simply rolling arms with someone.

Also, FWIW, supposing that Cho Ga is an older art Leung Jan's art, you'd have to look at Yik Gam's classmates to see about similarities on bridge training platforms. Compare Yik Gam to Wong Wah Bou, Leung Yi Tai, et al. rather than looking 3-4 generations younger. From what I've understood of Yuen Kay-San, he mostly had a hodge-podge of Wing Chun from several sources, elements of several of the Red Boat members so it's not a clear picture of what anyone taught anyway.

[Phenix]

"using the qi of ren and du medirians, bending foward,backward, and levitate to surpassed."

and

"The middle three front bent, back bent, or side turn.
One must totally "master" this method (all must link into one pice)"

Interesting to think that Centerline and standing upright comes from Hendrik's POV, considering that his own writings state to the effect for leaning.

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


Some one asking me about CK, BJ.....

Now, Any one do CK, BJ ?
how do you Bent front and back or side turn?

what do you use to do that?
What is the "middle Three"?

Guess

Is it or is it not. That is the question. Judge for yourself.

Why does even Yi Chuan has different type of Zhuang?
:D

[yuanfen]

Phenix- yup. Context is important in bending and turning.

[William E]

I've been trying to hold back and not contribute to this most insulting and destructive thread but feel that I must respond personally. This does not come from the HFY family but from me personally, William.

Prior to HFY, my experience consisted of 3 years of training in traditional animal style Kung Fu back in Massachusetts. I moved to the Bay Area 7 years ago and have taken Kung Fu and Tai Chi lessons from at least 4 different schools. I started taking lessons from Sifu Gee after he opened the Hung Fa Yi Kuen right down the street from my house 2 years ago. Sifu sat and talked with me for over an hour and was very genuine and open and has made it his mission to share his martial arts knowledge and skill with the public. Prior to that I had little knowledge of Wing Chung so I am certainly not qualified to discuss history or politics. My comments are pure perception, albeit not from a totally unbiased position I realize and I've yet to see any "hyped up marketing scheme" or cult like activities taking place in the back room.

Why do people feel so threatened by HFY?

I have to say that most, if not all of the posts that came from HFY students are all very respectful and sincere in nature with the intent of sharing the exciting new information that they are learning. With all due respect, these comments come from my kung fu brothers who are in the process of learning this treasure and can only speak from their limited experience and partial understanding and it does comes across incomplete at times. This is due in part because of the depth of the system and many layers that are being exposed during the students progression. The only person that can speak for the entire system is Sifu Gee and I don't recall ever seeing any posts from his lately.

Why is it always the same handful of "characters" that seem to have nothing better to do but to act disrespectful and confrontational towards HFY and its Grand Master?

You must feel threatened in some way.

Thanks again to my kung fu brothers who have always taken the high road even though a few individuals continue to attempt to drag us down to the level that they are at. We can all walk around with our heads held high at the end of the day which must be hard for the few with chips on their shoulders.

I am anxious for the book to come out at the end of the year which should hopefully provide additional information for those who have never seen it or who have attended one or two seminars.

It is clear to me that I have chosen the right school and the right Sifu…

[Phenix]

William,


Hendrick, what gives with you man? Why are you so threatened? - William


May be you want to read the post more. Am I feel threaten or the reverse that people feel threaten by the imformation I post?


I have to say that most, if not all of the posts that came from HFY students are all very respectful and sincere in nature with the intent of sharing the exciting new information that they are learning. ----William


May be you want to read the following and decide for yourself how respectful and sincere in nature about a HFY follow post.

By the way, since my lineage has long writing history and know very well who our ancestors are. Thank you for your sharing. But sorry to say, your information as in Kungfu Maganize is not applicable for my lineage.

And By the way, I am a Chan Buddhist. Your imformation about Chan is also not applicable for me since I found it contradict to the Buddhism teaching from the Buddhist temple.


Thanks for Sharing and best wishes.


Hendrik




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
((([QUOTE]Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
[B]Hendrik wrote: Since you and me are both one of many succesors of different system, we have the responsibility to clarify things for the Martial art public and future generation of Wing Chun Kuen and Weng Chun Kuen. This is Purely technical nothing personal.

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

Hm....

GM Hoffmann is the gate keeper of Chi Sim WCK.

But Hendrik is just a student (Successor) of Cho's Emie SLT.
_____________________________________


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

Rolling Hand,

Astute observation..... Andreas Hoffman is a true Grand Master of a system.... he is the only member of the Chi Sim Family to study and master the material and teachings of all five Chi Sim Lineages... he has thousands of students and grand students spread throughout the world... it is simply unforgivable that these internet punks with limited experience and no training in Kung Fu manners (i.e. Hendrik and Terrence) should speak to him as equals in the field of Kung Fu.... THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH INTERNET FORUMS.... there appears to be no respect whatsoever for the professional qualifications and accomplishments of true masters attempting to answer questions from self-appointed 'Experts'....

In the case of Hendrik and Terrence, there is most definitely a hidden agenda.... there is another force at play behind their continual attempts to embarrass Wing Chun masters who acknowledge their Shaolin roots... they have no desire to unite the Wing Chun world on a common journey for truth.... their goal is 'division'... without possessing any real credentials and certifications themselves, they have a need to pooh pooh other's legitimacy in order to make themselves feel more complete.

Your continual challenges of their self-inflated posturings and tomes are most sincerely appreciated by literally hundreds of Wing Chun players here in Arizona.)))

[t_niehoff]

William wrote:

Why do people feel so threatened by HFY?

One doesn't need to feel "threatened" to expose something for what it is. TN

Why is it always the same handful of "characters" that seem to have nothing better to do but to act disrespectful and confrontational towards HFY and its Grand Master.

Why doesn't HFY just provide proof of its claims and shut all us "characters" up if it bothers you all so? Hmmm . . . perhaps because that proof doesn't exist? TN

TN, how can anyone take you seriously? You throw comments and insults around like you really know what you're talking about. What are YOUR credentials? I would also make the same comment I made to Rene about including HFY in YOUR sifu's book or do I have that fact wron?. Why is it when someone questions your sifu you don't want to talk about it. There must be something to hide.

Here we go again -- instead of providing proof of claims, you ask about the "credentials" of the folks asking for proof. Are only people you personally recognize as having the "proper credentials" entitled to question HFY claims? And FWIW, "Complete Wing Chun" isn't perfect -- apparently several "lineages", Nanyang WCK and HFY, were included based on representations by those "lineages". That doesn't mean those representations were true. TN

Terence

[Geezer]

t_niehoff Wrote>

Here we go again -- instead of providing proof of claims, you ask about the "credentials" of the folks asking for proof. Are only people you personally recognize as having the "proper credentials" entitled to question HFY claims?

I think William E is asking a valid question, for example,

Martin Sheen>

"George W Bush is like a bad comic working the crowd, a moron, if you'll pardon the expression."

George W Bush's Credentials>
President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard.

Martin Sheen's Credentials>
Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton. Career: Acting

Who do you trust more,????I think credentials play a major part in this??????

Sheldon;)

[yuanfen]

William E. asks:Joy, for someone who preaches to be a student of Buddhism and WC I find your snide, off-handed remarks both destructive in nature and insulting. I would expect more from you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preach? I am not ina preaching tradition. You have my perspective wrong. I am curious (student?) abouta lot of things.
Again why focus on the person? Discuss the substance. My
interest in wing chun is considerable- so when I see something questionable I call them as I see them.
Focusing on posters rather than what is posted shifts the attention away from wing chun. Nothing snide about my views- put simply HFY seems to be a recent concoction of ambiguous
and pretentious statements on Chan, on kung fu lineage and theory.

If someone enjoys HFY, I have no problem... but the published, posted and stated claims of being original wing chun with a clear unbroken philosophical or religious lineage which fits the premises of modern science, but the terms are so unique that there isnt a common language? Tests credibility and it hasnt passed the test.

C'mon.

[reneritchie]

Rene, shame on you. You said that you were going to stay out of the HFY discussions but instead cleverly hide your insults (which are so obvious). I find it very interesting that a book that you co-authored called "Complete Wing Chung" included a chapter featuring Sifu Gee and NOW you want to try and discredit him. I don't think so. Low class.

I have no interest in petty, personal attacks from you or anyone else. If you would like to discuss WCK, I'll be more than happy, if you want to prove yourself an example of everything everyone else has been complaining about, please do so on your own.

I will answer the question about threats, because its valid. Back in the 1980s, William Cheung shook the Wing Chun Kuen world with claims that he had learned a secret, special system of WCK that no one else knew, that he was the sole inheritor, the one and only Grandmaster, that everyone else was "modified", less-than, unequal to, worse, etc. If you were around then, you saw the problems that caused. In New York, some of Moy Yat's students flocked to Cheung to learn his system. Cheung schools popped up all over, even though Cheung sifu wasn't there to directly teach at them all. Challenges were made, nasty letters traded back and forth in magazines, and eventually the Collogne incident happened, and Cheung and Emin Boztepe were video taped rolling around on the floor. And the art as a whole suffered for it. The problems continued. The internet was created and flame wars errupted between Cheung's group, Leung Ting's group, and others. The New York incident happened, and Draheim and Mazza became Cheung/Boztepe 2, and the martial world had another big laugh at us.

But the internet was a double edged sword. As much as it let the young, easily influenced, "champions" flame away for their masters, it also let the more mature, more intelligent students from many branches gain incredible insight into the art.

China opened, we saw WCK from the mainland. Old students left Cheung and Leung Ting, and inside stories were suddenly revealed. The giants cracked and broke, and where before hundreds of people took their stories like words written in stone, the human mind saw the holes, the problems, and decided it really wasn't worth arguing about. Problems disappeared. Sure, there were some flare ups, some knew, young, brash joiners on who wanted to become the new "champions" and fill some void in themselves, but by and large, as a whole, the WCK world matured.

Now, in many, eerily similar ways, the cycle is repeating. New articles are popping up talking about "older", "more complete", "original", etc. WCK. Moy Yat student(s) and grandstudent(s) are joining. Schools are popping up even though Gee sifu isn't there to personally teach at them all. Flame wars are erupting. "Champions" are stepping up to defend what are, on their face, unprovable stories.

That's the threat. That all the growth, the maturity, the coming together, the respect, the honor, the good for the art will be swept aside for something that in a few years will become apparent to its "champions" is just another story (a good art perhaps, maybe even a great one, but one with its story, like everyone else, and nothing worth arguing or creating discention or disharmony about).

No one is threatened by HFY. More power to HFY. Go HFY. What people are threatened by is fanaticism, and don't kid yourself that the behavior displayed in the media or on boards like this is anything but.

Humans are good at pattern recognition. It's instinct. Take a look around. Look for the patterns. Everyone else manages to discuss WCK without their lineage, be it Yip Man, Sum Nung, Koo Lo, Cho, etc. dominating the agenda. Everyone else manages to discuss things for themselves without masses of "sihing/sidai/sibak/sisuk/etc." attacking people who disagree with them. Everyone else manages to discuss WCK without being fanatics.

People feel threatened, feel WCK is threatened, because of fanatical behavior which many of us have suffered through before, worked hard to overcome, and do not wish to have to experience again.

That's the cold hard of it. You won't like it. You'll probably dismiss it without even considering it. But that's it.

[Geezer]

Would the people here consider WCK a Written Art or Physical Art?????

Sheldon

[Geezer]

Rene Wrote>

Schools are popping up even though Gee sifu isn't there to personally teach at them all.

Not trying to speak for the HFY guys but Rene is this an in-direct hit at the quality of the HFY teaching be it, Meng Sifu or Lowenhagan Sifu???????

Sheldon

[reneritchie]

I've only seen Benny teach once, the Moy Yat Chi Sao method at the first Friendship Seminar in Vancouver, but in terms of getting material across, he was *excellent*. He broke things down and presented them in a organized, progressive manner, and was good at illustrating what he meant and providing several methods to get that across to his audience. He's also an excellent host, and has many other great qualities. No experience with Richard.

[AndrewS]

Just to drop in on the usual HFY flame-fest.

As someone with no connection to Rene, Terence, Joy, Hendrik, et al, who has engaged in some fairly heated disputes with certain folks among the above-

all the history I've seen and read presented by HFY strikes me as a load of horse****.

To myself, and a number of other folks not involved with the 'Complete Wing Chun' Cabal you seem to be positing, the whole lineage story, ****logy with TWC, etc. is incredibly sketchy, and is not holding up in the court of public opinion (and wouldn't survive scrutiny in an academic journal).

This shady 'conspiracy' the HFY people seem to so enjoy pointing out, involves TWC folks, Robert Chu's people, folks from Ken Chung's line, WT guys, YKS people, students of Augustine Fong, and others.

At my last count there have been serious near challenge beefs or physical confrontations between exponents of-

TWC and WT
Fong and Chu
Chu and Chung
Chung and Fong
(insert political scrimmage here)

It seems if there's any conspiracy, it's that of people with some degree of analytical bent taking a look at the material presented and collectively holding their noses at its stench.

Later,

Andrew

P.S. Just to skip the bull****- if you want a fight there are venues. Set something up and post a grand in escrow. Otherwise don't waste my time.

[reneritchie]

And for the record I don't think you guys are fanatics about Hendrick just loyal friends.

I don't practice Hendrik's branch of WCK, nor do I agree with his theory on history, I simply believe its a possibility and like the fact that he shares real information to support it (or disprove it, if the information shared does that). This is different from a lacky or minion who just parrots what his sifu says.

(FWIW, I've only met Hendrik twice, about as often as Benny's met him).


I noticed that nobody commented on passing though reply.

Jeremy's reply was excellent. As usual, while many others whine and cry about imagined conspiracies and fall to petty personal attacks, Jeremy takes the time to educate, to share, and to try and increase understanding. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have as much time to share as others, and the others aren't wise enough to keep quiet and not do so much damage in his absence.

(FWIW, I think Jeremy's theory for a possible evolution from Shaolin to HFY (not sure he was including all of WCK in there, or if all could be included given the model he's using) is very interesting, far, *far* better than what's been spewed at us by others. I'm not sure it will be any easier to *prove* than Hendrik's theory, but I look forward to both, and to others, stepping up to the plate and making the attempt. I'll also add, wrt "hodge podge" that its an interesting choice of words, and rather ironic, all things considered :p )

[yuanfen]

Good post Andrew S...but Chung and Fong? I dont know of any-
unless you are refering to wind from Minneapolis?

But in contrast to HFY teamwork- critiques of HFY are very diverse and come from very different lineages and perspectives.

I have had considerable differences with Rene, Terence, Andrew
and many others on specific wing chun issues and my views are not isomorphic with Hendrik's. I am not part of any group.

I have critiqued HFY positions as I saw them. The personalism has been from several HFY folks. After all- lest we forget- we have
had a HFY sifu challenging me directly (my place or your place)
not too long ago and of all things in the name of Chan harmony!
Odd.

[Geezer]

Is WCK a Written Art or Physical Art?????

Sheldon;)

[Geezer]

wujidude Wrote>

For you, apparently, it's a written art.

This question wasn't actually directed at myself but thank you for answering for me.

Again, Is WCK a Written or Physical Art??????

What is it to you wujidude:confused:

Sheldon;)

[TjD]

Originally posted by Geezer
wujidude Wrote>


This question wasn't actually directed at myself but thank you for answering for me.

Again, Is WCK a Written or Physical Art??????

What is it to you wujidude:confused:

Sheldon;)


writing wont improve your kung fu

[Geezer]

TjD Wrote>

writing wont improve your kung fu

Then how can so many people be critical of something they have had little experience in????

I've never shot an AR15/M16, I've heard they're prone to jamming and need to be cleaned all the time, I've picked them up put them to my shoulder, feels real good but I've not had the experience in shooting one to comment on whether it's good or bad!!!!!!!

Why is it then that people that have had no hands on experience in HFY are so critical of the written word when any form of WCK should be expereinced hands on?????Seeing as WCK is a Physical Art.



Sheldon

[tparkerkfo]

Tom is incorrect. Hung Ga Kuen is a development of Fujian martial methods in Guangdong, and went through substantial change while in Guangdong province, including the addition/creation of "seed" sets like Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen and Tiet Sien Kuen. (Even in legend, tiger master Hung Hey-Goon married crane mistress Fong Wing-Chun and mixed their two arts to create Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen, making it only 50% "Shaolin", never mind that many modern sources place the sets introduction far later, at Wong Fei-Hong's time).

Gung Jee Fook Fu Kuen may be the best preservation of the material that came from Fujian, but research would need to be done in order to link it to a specific set extant in Fujian, then link that set back to "Southern Shaolin", then link it back to real (Songshan) Shaolin (and its possible there is no connection and any or all of those points).


Not sure why my post from a different topic got quoted (SHELDON!). But in any case it did and I feel I should atleast respond. LOL.

Martial arts has many different stories which mostly are oral tradition and sometimes written down. It doesn't take long before we start to see inconsistancies. Yet people still place all their eggs in one basket and fight "holy" wars to defend their piece of oral tradition. We all have the "correct version" LOL.

Anyway, when we discuss wing chun, it seems HFY can not help but be part of every discussion. Gee Shim also seems to pop up a lot. And since we are talking legends and oral traditions, I have to bring up Hung Gar as it is just as reputable and noted for its shaolin connection. Its source is supposed to be Jee Shim. So if others are going to discuss oral tradition about Jee Shim and what he taught and was supposed to know, then we can not over look his Hung Gar influence.

I am not sure what Rene was reporting I was incorrect on. Hung Gar seems to be a eclectic art that has added and was molded over time. The only form that actually is linked to the past is Gung Gee. The others were created later. All forms have been modified over the years. But we do have some versions outside of the modified Wong Fei Hung line and it is very much in the same flavor. Though the specifics are different, it is basically the same style. You can see it and tell. It doesn't look like wing chun of any branch.

Yes Fu Hok is a more modern set. There seems to have been a set prior to Wong Fei Hung, but he modified it heavily. Yes it was a creation of southern China. I never meant to imply differently. However, if we are talking oral tradition, we still need to take this into account. I am not at odds with Rene since I myself quesion many of the oral traditions as some what faulty. For the people that think the crane element in wing chun is like the crane element of hung gar, keep in mind what Rene said. The crane was not taught by Jee Shim. He taught the tiger system...according to legend.

I think Jim started this threat out the correct way. He looked at the methods of each art and showed how they differ from wing chun. I think this is very important as an art is unlikely to develop in thin air.

With that said, I think people are too quick to use scientific reasoning. I don't think it can allways be applied to history. For example, just because Gee Sifu cannot prove his lineage doesn't mean it is not true. Just means we have to take him at his word and trust. Not an easy thing. I can't prove my lineage, but I am quite sure my lineage dates back to "Eve". Not the biblical one, but the anthropological one. I cannot PROVE it, but it doesn't mean it is not so. So I think the only thing left is to look at what we do have, the methods and concepts.

Well, enough for me. These threads are getting boring as few are actually participating. Most are generating more heat than light. Others are just stiring up crap by cutting and pasting cleaverly.

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

[TjD]

Originally posted by Geezer
TjD Wrote>


Then how can so many people be critical of something they have had little experience in????

I've never shot an AR15/M16, I've heard they're prone to jamming and need to be cleaned all the time, I've picked them up put them to my shoulder, feels real good but I've not had the experience in shooting one to comment on whether it's good or bad!!!!!!!

Why is it then that people that have had no hands on experience in HFY are so critical of the written word when any form of WCK should be expereinced hands on?????Seeing as WCK is a Physical Art.



Sheldon


ugh i didnt want to get dragged into this stupid argument :D lineage doesnt mean all that much, if your gonna talk the talk you better walk the walk. i bet i could count the number of people on this forum that have any idea who my sifu is on one hand. i don't mention him so i don't tarnish the image of our school (as threads like this tend to do).

all the arguments waged against HFY were not against the abilities of their practicioners, rather against HFY people saying "our WCK is the TRUE original WCK," without having any form of argument to back it up - other than personal attacks against the people questioning that HFY is the true original WCK. i couldn't care either way - it won't affect my kung fu in the least.

hendrik has offered an interesting logical progression of how his WCK could have been formed, i have yet to hear anything like it posted by anyone else on this forum. i wont say i agree with it or disagree with it, because these matters simply are nothing more than a passing interest to me. what i'm really interested in is improving my kung fu and silly arguments such as this are useless in that regard.

i don't know whose made false claims about lineage, but it does happen. people like money/fame and will tell lies to get money/fame. i don't see anything wrong with people being wary of people who make claims that seem to be for the purpose of getting more students/money/fame - it just makes sense.

also, when a poster begins to make personal attacks, unfortunately my mind instantly labels them as an idiot, because they could not back up their words in a civilized fashion. it might be wrong but thats how i work.

[Geezer]

TjD Wrote>

ugh i didnt want to get dragged into this stupid argument lineage doesnt mean all that much, if your gonna talk the talk you better walk the walk. i bet i could count the number of people on this forum that have any idea who my sifu is on one hand. i don't mention him so i don't tarnish the image of our school (as threads like this tend to do).

Travis......I'm actually in agreement with you here, regarding the tarnished part because of my Sifu's expressed wish's not to be brought into the limelight I've made sure that his secret(if you can call it that) is safe with me;)

I was just trying to make a point and unfortunately you repsonded......my bad.


Sheldon

[TjD]

woops :D

until this stupid thread took a turn for the worse... there were a bunch of good wing chun related threads going on here to :(

i was starting to see hope for this forum :rolleyes: it sucks that this took the spotlight

[Geezer]

tparkerfo Wrote>

Not sure why my post from a different topic got quoted (SHELDON!).

Hey.....if you're going to write here expect to be quoted!!!!!!! I was using what you said (as you train in Hung Ga) in regards to something Rene was saying.

tparkerfo Wrote>

But in any case it did and I feel I should atleast respond.

Likewise.......

Tom......for fear of being booted I'm not going to give a big speech, if you have anything to say send me a PM. I'm still waiting for the one you were going to send the other day?????


Sheldon;)

[kj]

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
... few are actually participating.

It's not an accident. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[passing_through]

Hendrik,

"Some one asking me about CK, BJ....."

Nope, didn't ask a thing about Biu Ji or Chum Kiu...
I was quoting you

in your original, hidden art
called Siu Liem Tau,
where is the Chum Kiu or Biu Ji,
talk about milk, I want the cow

That's part of the Ermei theory that doesn't seem to make sense - one form with one name to three forms with three names...

Why does Wing Chun contain 3 forms, pole, double knife, and dummy training? Did the Ermei 12 Zhuang contain all these elements or does White Crane (so far, I've only found the following scant selection of weapons from white crane: single: Seven Star Staff, spear, three-sectional staff, Kwan Dao, cane, Jam Ma Dao, fork Fu Cha, Single Broadsword, Straight sword, Fan; double: double iron rods, double broadswords, southern short swords - guess Wing Chun is a poor-man's white crane so far as weapons go)?

Or did the forms come from some as yet unknown

yet...

Chi Sim has 4 forms (and several places where movements are very similar to movements within the 3 forms of Wing Chun - difference is in body position (from a VERY surface level)), double knife, pole, and dummy training... very interesting. What if the people developing Wing Chun had the same roots for both Chi Sim Weng Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun... twin arts so to speak - same pool of weapons and supplementary apparatus: pole, double knife, dummy... similar ideas about Chan, fighting and health being connected... only difference is in structure (Heaven, Human, Earth body structure vs. Saam Dim Sat Sin body structure), and principles to support said body structure... yup, no way there's any possible, merest glimmering of connection between Shaolin and Wing Chun... gotta be the standing around waiting for the birds.

As for you being threatened... I notice that the most information you post is in response to someone calling you out in one post, when you run away to another post and state something about "some people" and make veiled insults/comments about understanding/attitude/education/intent/heart/motivation and indirectly answer the question that was posed to you in whatever format it was posed. So, yeah, I see that as someone that is threatened.

And as for Chan, I'm still waiting on a reply to a post I wrote quite some time ago... guess the Buddhist way is to run whenever possible… or maybe just the Hendrik Buddhist way. There's a time and a place for everything... a time for peace and a time for war. Ignore that and you ignore reality. Ever seen the Heart of Buddha?

Why does even Yi Chuan has different type of Zhuang?[\b]

What does Yi Chuan have to do with Wing Chun, 12 Zhang, White Crane or Siu Liem Tau? Yi Chuan has what it has? Being sloppy with inference wins you no points.

[b]Your imformation about Chan is also not applicable for me since I found it contradict to the Buddhism teaching from the Buddhist temple.

and I find you contradict reality... your point is? You're like a cat trying to talk to an elephant - you speak at your level and the elephant at his. That there is miscommunication is self-evident. Even “the Buddhist temple” is not an authority on Chan. Or did they teach you otherwise?

Jeremy R.

[passing_through]

Jim, a little more for you to mull over:

1) what determines an art to be Shaolin in origins? The body structures or teaching Chan and health as well as fighting skills? In your experience with Southern styles (you mentioned (Mantis, Dragon, White Eyebrow, White Crane) , did any of them train /discuss / present information consistently between Chan, health and self-defense skills? Or were they predominantly self-defense/fighting with little Chan and/or hei gung?

2) What do you think about Hendrik and Joy's comments about leaning, as you stated "WC does not lean forward or backward." I take it from Joy's comments that it is permissible for him to lean - anyone else in the Augustine Fong/Ho Kam Ming/Ip Man clan happen to agree? Is this standard across all Wing Chun lineages? In what context is leaning permissible?

Jeremy R.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello all,


This will be a two part message since it was too long!


Man! Topics just cant stay on path. I started this to discuss technical stuff and never intended it to be a HFY only discussion. As a matter of fact I have never once mentioned HFY in any of my posts. This was all about the Shaolin story etc and my thoughts on Hendrik's info.. Well, now that it’s in the crapper lets see if we can get it back on track. JR


Passing Through,


As said many times; This was never about HFY but now I have to reply to some of your answers with HFY's name included. Also, any chance of having your name on your posts so we know with whom we are speaking ? I do see some frustration in your tone but will do my best to keep things cool since this is not about any particular lineage even tho you are trying to make it that way. JR


Jim,


Until a detailed analysis of Zhan Zhuang and/or Fuiken Crane, in addition to Shaolin arts, presented through a side-by-side comparison is completed, all there can be are beliefs.

Agreed. Solid information needs to be studied to make ones decisions. Luckily I study a Zhan Zhuang art to help support my views. Also, we are lucky to have people that have a fair amount of Fukien info. research to help the discussion. JR


Wing Chun doesn't lean forward because it comes from the 12 Zhuang?... interesting, yet, Hendrik's own post states

I stated that was my belief for the taking of the forward bow of the so-called Shaolin (south fist) to make it more upright. You are taking the info. out of context. JR

Interesting to think that Centerline and standing upright comes from Hendrik's POV, considering that his own writings state to the effect for leaning.

Indeed WC is flexible and has other aspects in it. In Koo Lo we also have some left/right and forward/backward bending for certain situation. Even at the end of Biu Jee there is the Gao San (saving body) that bends forward/backward so I think you took the post out of context. JR

This is a based on your assumption for #2 above. HFY and Chi Sim both make use of Loi Lau Hoi Sung as a minor concept.

I would not doubt it since both were involved with WCK some how. Both were supposed to be on the Red Boat. Name one of the so-called south fist so-shaolin that makes use of this? Topic was most likely not understood since I have yet to find anyone who does not connect to WCK that makes use of it. JR

*giggle* I'm sure you didn't mean that how it reads. If you don't contract muscle, how do you move? ^_-

I meant it exactly how it reads. You are taking topic out of context or maybe don’t understand what was being said. Anyone knows that the body needs strength to hold itself up but I am talking about muscle contraction. I think that was pretty clear and by now we all know the difference between Ging, Lik and contraction strength. JR


Careful about what you claim about alignment and the use of shifting - HFY footwork doesn't "shift" per se. There is a very small degree of adjustment due to energy but stepping does involve a toe/heel relationship when stepping - supported by other structures of the body.

All WC makes adjustment because of our opponent and what you just said. That is the essence of WCK yet we can see how the turning or stepping turns or whatever are not performed the way WCK does in the so-called Shaolin south fist and if you make use of Heel To Toe then that places you different from the other lineages stemming from the Hung Suen. Yuen Kay San, Koo Lo, Yik Kam, Yip Man, etc. all align similar. JR


At what level are you speaking? And for all lineages? No Wing Chun makes use of Doy Jong type strength sets?

I only speak of what I have have witnessed, discussed or researched. Isometric dynamic strength (resistence) partner training is not found in any WC I have been exposed to. JR

As for your questions/opinions on points 7, 10, & 11, think of this:

Wing Chun was supposed to be created as a system to counter all styles. Could this be accomplished by using old technology? Meaning, the "traditional" Shaolin 3 step, 4 angle was considered outdated and Wing Chun would have to be something new.

This is an old fable IMO. Many arts claim the same. Newer to counter all etc.. Sounds more like marketing but lets say its true! Now, since most have claimed that there was a new way of thinking and there was a combination of military and internal from the monks to create the new superior art then what would those two arts be that were the foundation of WC? Also, looking at your family tree I can see that its not that new compared to South Mantis and other arts! They can only trace back to the mid 1800's (and HFY the mid 1600's) so maybe they were correct when they said they were the new improved? JR

There are two things to consider when looking for Shaolin connections: the first Sim Jung and the second is body structure.

Starting with Sim Jung, HFY and Chi Sim both share a three-leveled approach to training/understanding. In a rudimentary view: beginner/intermediate/advanced. This three-leveled approach is used to bring deeper levels of understanding and awareness about combat, reality, life, and self. This approach/awareness is something I find completely lacking from discussion on Ip Man, Yuen Kay-San, or Koo Lo Wing Chun lineages. There is a great deal of technical discussion but very little, very general or no spiritual discussion.

How does one know this makes them Shaolin or not? Was anyone in the temple to know if this teaching came from Shaolin? Jee Shim can only trace back to the Red Boats and they were not in Shaolin at that time. So, prior to that its all stories. JR

Looking at body structure, Chi Sim makes reference to centerline while expressing it through heaven, human, and earth body postures. Most Wing Chun makes use of human body structures - standing upright, hands in front of the body.

Once again. How does one know this makes them Shaolin or not? JR

Hung Fa Yi body structures are based on the Saam Dim Yat Sin principle. From this principle, the foundation of the system flows. It is this principle, the Saam Dim Yat Sin, that breaks HFY away from Shaolin body structures. Saam Dim Yat Sin is required to discuss efficiency and economy of motion. Why train standing still? To find the most efficient movement in a given time and space, you have to start by removing variables. If two opponent's are both moving, they will fine loose moments of efficiency that are elusive, giving rise to the term "lucky timeframe." By standing still, you have a set body posture from which to gauge any action and measure the efficiency. In Chan terms, you have a focus from which to begin to understand yourself as time/space/energy.

Great! But! How does one know this makes them Shaolin or not? Technical info is great but it doesn’t show Shaolin root or not. JR

From the Saam Dim Yat Sin, the formula was created. This continued the evolution away from Shaolin body structures. By knowing the formula, you have a grid to map out both your motions and your opponent's motions. This changes the training of Kiu Sau due to knowing when you've moved too far, a time/space distortion that opens up your energy for your opponent to manipulate it. It is on this formula that HFY can be claimed to be a science.

Cool but since all HFY claims to be a combo of Monk/Military then what was original arts that the evolution developed from and how do we know that makes their root in Shaolin or not. JR

Now, going back to Sim Jung, the formula expresses time/space/energy as a mode, a faat, for reference to reality. First, you have reality, then you have no reality, then you do. The formula takes you into the "you have no reality" stage by giving you a tool to break apart reality and see it for what it is, moment by moment. Once you understand the formula, it goes away and you simply are.

Sounds like fine principles but it still doesnt make it Shaolin rooted or evolved from Shaolin does it? JR

So, to ask about shapes, you have to know the purpose. HFY bridges both form and function, uniting the two in harmony by means of the formula. HFY doesn't look like Shaolin - and it shouldn't. However, the change in shape is meaningless as to the essence of Chan. Sigung Gee uses Chan to teach HFY; he uses HFY to teach Chan - that's the essence of Shaolin. Not in kicking, punching or standing.

To link arts one must be able to show DNA linkage otherwise the claim is just a claim etc.. All the above is fine but shows no connection to Shaolin. JR

[Jim Roselando]

Part 2

Now, if you want to talk about looks, then from the HFY POV, there is only HFY and nothing else. I make this statement not out of ego but out of understanding of the system. The formula is the ultimate reference - if you have the exact reference and structure, it is HFY (regardless of name). If you are off the formula, no matter what you call it, it's not HFY. That's how clear the system is to its students. People on the outside want to say HFY is similar to TWC. Not to my eye. The closest WC to HFY is Chi Sim Weng Chun. Both are Sim Jung arts.

When you believe in the one and only superior all countering art you often loose the ability to think openly. I am speaking from experience with that statement! Principles and lines and Chan make not a direct connection to Shaolin. So, now that you are going down this road I will have to make a point by playing devils advocate!!! How do you know these principles were not combined into HFY by Wang Ming or anyone else? How do you know Garrette Gee wasn’t lied to and someone took the Hung Mun info. and combined it with some WC legend to come up with their own story? Without seeing another lineage from your same family nobody can say its true or not can they? I am not saying this is the truth but when you claim to be original you open yourself up to this. These statements were to show how both parties can say anything they want and not meant in any bad way. JR

In HFY Siu Nim Tau (idea) is the origin, not Siu Lim Tau (drilling) - also interesting that Ip Man also made use of Siu Nim Tau, not Siu Lim Tau. Siu Nim Tau deals with understanding yourself, the universe, and reality, expressed physically through the formula. Standing still was due to the Saam Dim Yat Sin principle and the formula. Further, how would adopting the use of the Zhuang require the Shaolin to change numerology? You don't highlight that change well in the quote above.

Changing the traditional 3, 18, 108 numerology shows a change in the art and the term Siu is more in line with a Zhuang idea. Your info./people makes claim to be a combo of Military and Monk so I state why I believe its a combo and you state only why you believe the principles make you shaolin. Basically, no info. other than the principles which doesn’t show any connection. JR

As for your comments about Chi Sau... Shaolin systems make use of Kiu Sau in the form of X Star Training/Blocking, where X is a number such as 3,5,9,etc. This is considered a Fau Kiu level of combat bridge training in HFY. Some Shaolin systems make use of Kiu Sau as a form of reactional training with a higher emphasis on skill development - using the forearms to engage the enemy (Mantis, Dragon, Baak Mei, Weng Chun, others). This is considered a Saan Kiu level of combat bridge training. Wing Chun makes use of Chi Sau training - Chi Sau exists on a different timeframe than Kiu Sau due to the range and theories involved. Additionally, Chi Sau does not allow for range to be compromised, unlike the Teui Sau of Tai Gik (Taiji). Meaning, Tai Gik allows energy to come close to the body in terms of range before redirection - this is a violation in HFY (and also for my Ip Man training as well). In terms of HFY, allowing your range to be compromised opens up access to your center of gravity.

That’s why I find the Chi Sao to be more similar to a combo of Toy Sho with Fukien south fist and the principles would not be compromised. Wouldn’t that make sense? I would think you would agree since you state it’s a combo of military and monk. JR

For a more technical discussion on Kiu Sau/Chi Sau evolution, we'll have to get together in person. This is due to the level of context required to understand the development process. Kiu Sau is far more involved than simply rolling arms with someone.

I think meeting in person is always the best way to discuss but since we are all part of a discussion board we can all begin chatting here. JR

Also, FWIW, supposing that Cho Ga is an older art Leung Jan's art, you'd have to look at Yik Gam's classmates to see about similarities on bridge training platforms. Compare Yik Gam to Wong Wah Bou, Leung Yi Tai, et al. rather than looking 3-4 generations younger.

Yik Kam’s art is no older than any other art. Nobody is claiming that. They all were Red Boat members and for what its worth both Yik Kam and Leung Jan's Koo Lo make use of the 4 circling hands chi sao platforms. Yik Kam’s classmate was Wong Wah Bo (and others) and we have a few lineages to compare info. with to find similarities and they do have many many similarities but using this logic you would have to look at Hung Gam Biu’s classmates (or Garrattes) to find similarities in your own lineage woudnt you? JR

From what I've understood of Yuen Kay-San, he mostly had a hodge-podge of Wing Chun from several sources, elements of several of the Red Boat members so it's not a clear picture of what anyone taught anyway.

Not at all. YKS was a fine master of WC and his WC was almost identical to Leung Jan’s teaching in Koo Lo and the Cho’s etc.. He was also fortunate enough to learn Grappling and close body fighting from Weng Chun’s Fung Siu Ching. There was no Hodge-Podge WC coming from that man. This info is way off. It is very easy to see what was more likely than less likely being practiced on the boats. Look at the different lineage stemming from it and compare. Yik Kam, Wong Wah Bo (thru YKS and Leung Jan) etc. all preserve something very similar after 150 years. It not hard at all. JR


Unfortunately we had to play devils advocate with this e-mail since the tone was changed and the elitist attitude came out. Its very easy for any person discussing to do this but what started off as a technical and adult chat has gone into the toilet.


Thanks to all those who participate and no thanks to those who could not leave the ego at the door and ruined this thread. This topic is dead for me.


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've done Moy Yat Vingtsun for 8 years followed by William Cheung's Traditional Wing Chun for the last 20 years - and I want to share some things with you folks about TWC and HFY...

A friend of mine who joined Moy Yat after I left the school - and who has been teaching Moy Yat's stuff for quite a few years now -and who has been shown a fair amount of TWC by me over the last 10 years or so whenever we've gotten together...

first told me about Garrett Gee. He first learned of Gee from Benny Meng, who was, at least in theory - still a student of Moy Yat at the time. My friend (whose name is Miquel Hernandez)
showed me a 4 page flier put out by Garrett Gee about Hung Fa Yi
and the photos depicted moves that looked almost exactly like TWC...

Miguel eventually attended a Garrett Gee seminar and told me that almost everything he saw looked like TWC, including the famous entry technique, etc.

Since then I've seen two different magazine articles put out by Gee and again almost everything looked like TWC...

I am VERY familiar by now with the names and in many instances the faces of virtually everyone who ever studied with William Cheung or any of his students for any significant length of time...

and I can assure you that Garrett Gee is not one of them.

Therefore the only reasonable conclusion I can make is that:

1) TWC & HFY are probably one and the same thing...
2) Leung Bik may have taught TWC to others besides Yip Man...
who passed it along to William Cheung...and one or more of
those "others" may have some connection to Garrett Gee...
3) Leung Jun may have taught TWC to "others" (besides his son,
Leung Bik); and one or more of these "others" are connected
somewhere along the line to Gee...

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS......

Whether or not the story that Gee tells in the magazine articles, with all the names, and dates, and places leading straight to him and him only...are true...WHO CAN KNOW?

Would I do know is that the two systems are remarkably similar to each other and that neither system was invented by William Cheung or Garrett Gee...

[woseung]

Does “Sim Jung” mean Chan Buddhism? If a martial art is guided by Chan Buddhism, that would be evidence that the art is connected to Shaolin. I know enough about Shaolin to know that the essence is Chan Buddhism. Why does Jim keep asking for the connection?

[yuanfen]

I take it from Joy's comments that it is permissible for him to lean - anyone else in the Augustine Fong/Ho Kam Ming/Ip Man clan happen to agree? Is this standard across all Wing Chun lineages? In what context is leaning permissible?

Jeremy R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy- you read wrong and are losing sight of context in my comments.I am usually very attentive to context..



I do NOT lean in the slt- I do NOT teach leaning in the slt- none of my good bros and sisters lean in the slt- my good students do NOT lean in the slt. Bad students are constantly reminded not to lean.

Pics can deceive- but our axis runs straight down in ygkym and the slt.

There is some swallowing in one place in the chum kiu- with two dai bongs and there is the dipping/ rising section at the end of the biu jee which can look like "leaning-bending" ( the tyrrany of language) but not in the slt- for very
important theoretical and structural reasons.

Hendrik's system apparently fuses slt, chum kiu and biu jee into one form. I have not seen his form- but the foundation kuit that he has cited appears to list and yet distinguish between standing, turning and "leaning". Hendrik can elaborate on his tradition. I dont speak for him.

So what is your point?


I have mentioned that all 3 hand forms in what I do can be seen as different sections of the wing chun text. Foolish to go to section two without mastering section one. But the principles of the three forms are inter-related. Our wing chun is a system-
a true system leaves multiple implications each step of the way-
hence economy. elegance and compression.... rather than a catalog of techniques.

As far as asking whether others agree with me...we are not members of any "museum" or chain or branches-not made with a cookie cutter- fairly independent folk who dont engage in group think. None of us run for imprimatur-s to headquarters.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by woseung
Does “Sim Jung” mean Chan Buddhism? If a martial art is guided by Chan Buddhism, that would be evidence that the art is connected to Shaolin. I know enough about Shaolin to know that the essence is Chan Buddhism. Why does Jim keep asking for the connection?


Sim Jung means Chan School in cantonese.

The legacy or transmission of Chan needs a Patriach's certification.
Without the certification, there is no guarentee it is Chan teaching.

So, the question is who certified who? This is not attacking anyone but just to present the fact in Chan's system.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by passing_through


Your imformation about Chan is also not applicable for me since I found it contradict to the Buddhism teaching from the Buddhist temple.

and I find you contradict reality... your point is? You're like a cat trying to talk to an elephant - you speak at your level and the elephant at his. That there is miscommunication is self-evident. Even “the Buddhist temple” is not an authority on Chan. Or did they teach you otherwise?

Jeremy R.


You can belive in any reality you like.

The bottom line is if you are serious about Chan, Then, Shows what Chan lineage and which Chan master who certified your lineage from before Red Boad continous down to you.

That simple. You have the lineage transmission or not.

so if Buddhist temple which homage to Buddha, Dharma, and Shanga is not an authority on Chan.
Is HFY lineage an authority of Chan?

By the way, Show all of us where the Term Sam Mo Kiu from? Which Sutra? If Sam Mo kiu cannot be find in any Sutras. Then, how real is you Chan?

[Chango]

phenix/ Hendrick,

I don't claim to be a Chan expert but I think when you make an argument based on if you cannot show me it in sutra it is not Chan. This is one of the first lessons on sutra and methods isn't it? Did I misunderstand your question?Are you the holder of all of the sutra? are the sutra the total sum of Chan? ROFLOL! you can't be serious! Please explain! Is this thing on? can you hear me now? good! LOL! :D



Saat geng sau

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Chango
phenix/ Hendrick,

I don't claim to be a Chan expert but I think when you make an argument based on if you cannot show me it in sutra it is not Chan.


This is one of the first lessons on sutra and methods isn't it?


Did I misunderstand your question?Are you the holder of all of the sutra?


are the sutra the total sum of Chan?



ROFLOL! you can't be serious! Please explain! Is this thing on? can you hear me now? good! LOL! :D



Saat geng sau


A,

All buddhist take vow to take refuge in Buddha , Dharma , and Sangha.

All buddhist will have to learn sutra and sastra. That is the buddha Dharma. That is Buddha's teaching.

Chinese Buddhist all makes a vow " deeply study the Sutra and Sastra to attain sea deep wisdom."

So, are you saying you dont have to learn buddha Dharma and claim you are a Chan school follower? and you can create your own term?


B,


The Sutra is the salira of Buddhas. Where ever there is sutra there is Buddha. So decide for yourself if Sutra is the heart of Chan and what is the Chan?

You speaking about Heart or Sin or Sum. Well, this is just term in Madarin or Cantonese. no big deal with the term in cantonese or madarin.

The fact is
If sutra is not the heart of Chan then why the 5th patriach needs to use the Diamond sutra to verify the 6th patriach and why Boddhidhama of Shao LIn need to use Lanka sutra to verify the 2nd patriach.

EVEN DAMO has to USE LANKA sutra as certification. So do you says XYZ or ABC can creat their own term without following sutra? ARe they more senior then DAMO?
If they are Then what is their record in Buddhism History?

if the XYZ or ABC are not then they are DEMON using the name of Buddhism to mislead people according to Surangama Sutra.

As soon as the teaching of Suragama is in this world, you can't get away. Get that?:D

[canglong]

"He who replies to one asking about Tao, does not know Tao. Although one may hear about Tao, he does not really hear about Tao. There is no such thing as asking about Tao. There is no such thing as answering such questions. To ask a question which cannot be answered is vain. To answer a question which cannot be answered is unreal. And one who thus meets the vain with the unreal is one who has no physical perception of the universe, and no mental perception of the origin of existence."

(Chuang-tzu, p. 289, H.A. Giles translation, Shanghai, 1926).

[KPM]

Hi Victor!

You wrote:
Therefore the only reasonable conclusion I can make is that:

1) TWC & HFY are probably one and the same thing...
2) Leung Bik may have taught TWC to others besides Yip Man...
who passed it along to William Cheung...and one or more of
those "others" may have some connection to Garrett Gee...
3) Leung Jun may have taught TWC to "others" (besides his son,
Leung Bik); and one or more of these "others" are connected
somewhere along the line to Gee...

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS......

---Including choice #4:
William Cheung and Garret Gee do know each other and exchanged techique.

You stated:
Would I do know is that the two systems are remarkably similar to each other and that neither system was invented by William Cheung or Garrett Gee...

---I for one would hesitate to assume that I know everything about a given individual. How can you be so confident in your statements above? It is historically clear that Leung Jan did indeed teach two versions of WCK....the "3 form" version that he taught to Chan Wah Shun and others, and the "Pien San" version that he taught after retiring to Koo Lo village. We have historical links or "DNA" back to what Wong Wah Bo taught in the form of YKSWCK, PSWCK, and even early YMWCK that show very similar structures and elements. And they look nothing like TWC or HFY. And please note that Leung Jan is not included anywhere in the stated HFY family tree. So IMHO, the jury is still out on the TWC/HFY connection. Maybe there was a prior method that gave rise to both TWC and HFY. But how do we explain how HFY came to include the Luk Sau rolling platform (developed by Yip Man and Yuen Kay Shan), the Dan Chi Sau drill (developed by Yip Man), and the term "Bart Jam Dao" (which was coined by Yip Man)? I can explain it by a William Cheung/Garret Gee link of some sort. This also explains why TWC and HFY look so similar. So in the absence of any other proof or even a good alternate theory, I have to go with what seems the most logical and obvious......William Cheung and Garret Gee trained together at some point. That is the only proposal that makes sense out of the whole thing. Someone somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.

Keith

[t_niehoff]

Chango,

The point Hendrik is making is by what authority do you call what you do Ch'an? Now I know you'll respond by saying you don't need any authority, but if that is the case then couldn't anyone say anything and call it Ch'an? There must be some way of telling if what you call Ch'an is genuine Ch'an or not (other than "it sounds right" to you). Hendrik speaks of lineage because while you pointed out half of it -- that Ch'an may be passed on outside the sutras (which of course doesn't mean anything passed outside the sutras is Ch'an) -- you left out the other half: that it is transmitted from heart to heart (i.e., person to person: a lineage). So Hendrik asks if you can prove lineage. W/r/t sutras -- obviously Ch'an can be passed on via the sutras: the Fourth Patriarch was illiterate and not a Ch'an practitioner but when he heard someone reciting the Diamond Sutra he became enlightened. Moreover, many recognized ch'an/zen masters, besides the Buddha, have either written on the subject or had their words recorded. Do you think all of this is nonsense and doesn't express Ch'an? So Hendrik asks if your alleged Ch'an concepts have been expressed in the Sutras (or other canonical writings). From your mock-derisive answers, I take it you can neither prove a genuine Ch'an lineage nor show any reference to what you claim is Ch'an in any recognized Ch'an materials. If I'm wrong, provide the evidence. Otherwise, we can only conclude that what you call Ch'an is something made up by someone without any genuine Ch'an lineage or isn't even referenced in any of the prodigious Ch'an literature. TN

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

Keith,

You wrote:

I have to go with what seems the most logical and obvious......William Cheung and Garret Gee trained together at some point. That is the only proposal that makes sense out of the whole thing. Someone somewhere is not telling us the whole truth.

I agee that there is a connection, and it may be that the two trained together. Or, it could be that one or the other trained within the other's system (with someone else besides the principal). Since TWC is essentially Yip Man WCK -- it basically follows Yip's form choreography and contains Yip's signature moves, uses Yip-unique drills, etc. -- and because there is no evidence that anyone practiced HFY prior to Garrett, I think the only reasonable conclusion is that Garrett picked up TWC and repackaged it (adding theory, Ch'an, etc.). I may be wrong, and if evidence is ever produced to contradict my conclusion, I'll change it. But HFY has been in the public eye for 5 years now, these same questions have been floating around, and the evidence to answer them hasn't been forthcoming. So I doubt it ever will. TN

Terence

[hunt1]

If you took a philipino approach to WC i.e learn weapons first and then learn empty hand what would your WC look like? Apply weapon concepts to empty hands and how would you approach empty hand combat? If you look at the system backwards you will come up with something very much like TWC.

[reneritchie]

Victor,

I was at that seminar and had the pleasure of meeting Hernandez sifu there, and getting a copy of his excellent book. FWIW - A theory floated there was that William Cheung learned part of the HFY system from one of Gee sifu's sihings in China.

Neither story makes sense to me, however, but then, neither do the alternatives. I submit that the similarities to each other, combined with the differences to other branches, does suggest a connection, but that it's not likely to be figured out without more information, so its better to focus on the culture in general at this point, and known information, and based on what's impossible, define the constraints of what's left, and what's more or less likely within those constraints.

Jeremy,

I believe Andreas Hoffmann sifu has several times directly requested that Chi Sim Weng Chun Kuen *NOT* be used in these types of discussions. While I personally think comparisons are useful (for example, the way we can compare Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San, Gulao, and Yik Kam to get an idea of what WCK historically looked like back to the late 1800s), I also think branches should be fully capable of standing on their own. For example, Hoffmann sifu doesn't seem to include endless references to HFY in his material, but does show the documented legacies of the Tang, Dong, and other families and generations of masters, and how anyone can go to China and find the same info.

Thanks, as always, for the rest of your very interesting and educational posts. I'm not sure I can see a Shaolin connection yet (in anything other than spirit, perhaps, or homage) but I sincerely respect and appreciate your efforts to "show" instead of just "tell".

[mun hung]

I was told by a representative of the HFY family that the forms were pretty much the same, except TWC was missing two sections in the Chum Kiu. I was also told that it was possible that William Cheung could have learned it from someone within the same family of HFY when he was traveling in China. Who knows. Even Victor who has practiced TWC for twenty years states that it is very similar. The system has got to come from somewhere. I doubt they (Cheung/Gee) learned it from each other. So we have two similar systems with their roots shrouded in mystery.

The only problem I had with the HFY people I'd met was their opinion of how Yip Man Wing Chun was inferior (as a fighting art) to HFY. I had to disagree.

[t_niehoff]

hunt1 wrote:

If you took a philipino approach to WC i.e learn weapons first and then learn empty hand what would your WC look like? Apply weapon concepts to empty hands and how would you approach empty hand combat? If you look at the system backwards you will come up with something very much like TWC.

Well, from my perspective, the empty hands and weapons of WCK use the same principles and mechanics. TWC is IMO simply William Cheung's revised "text" that he is using to teach WCK as he understands it. And there's nothing wrong with that -- lot's of teachers do that (Augustine Fong's forms aren't exact replicas of Ho Kam Ming's but the information is the same -- it's WCK; it is only that he may highlight different things, tries to make others more clear, etc.). When we focus on the finger (with "my finger is superior to your finger" or "my finger is the original finger"), we miss the moon. TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

hunt1 wrote:

If you took a philipino approach to WC i.e learn weapons first and then learn empty hand what would your WC look like? Apply weapon concepts to empty hands and how would you approach empty hand combat? If you look at the system backwards you will come up with something very much like TWC.

Terence wrote:Well, from my perspective, the empty hands and weapons of WCK use the same principles and mechanics. TWC is IMO simply William Cheung's revised "text" that he is using to teach WCK as he understands it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence- I dont think that you and Hunt 1 were on the same page in your discussion. Hunt 1 referred to consequences in the order of teaching.

Apart from whatever principles are involved- FWIW IMO--- there are learning theory and developmental issues involved. Ergo-depending on order of teaching different results can occur.

If you learn weapons too early one can miss some development of micromotions of the hand. "Principles" can be "cerebral" but
body shaping based on the principles can have its own chemistry
and have its own learning curves..

joy

[hunt1]

Terence, Yuanfen understands where I am going. You must first divorce yourself of the empty hand forms and their concepts. Then look objectively at the weapon forms what they teach and how things are applied weapon vs weapon then based only on this build empty hand forms.

For example the cover of Bill Cheungs book on chun kui has a picture that violates many concepts of WC yet if you look at it from a weapon point of veiw it makes perfect sense.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Let me go right to the bottom line in this conversation:

While I believe as I've stated that the similarities between TWC and HFY are so remarkable that there must be an historical connection between them (perhaps even to the point of saying that they are one and the same)...and I also agree that the two systems are very different than the other wing chun systems...

Nonetheless...In my opinion...THE THEORIES PUT FORWARD BY SOME THAT WILLIAM CHEUNG MUST HAVE LEARNED TWC FROM SOMEONE ELSE OTHER THAN YIP MAN ...MAKE NO SENSE...!

Please put politics aside for a moment and make an honest attempt to follow my reasoning:

Over the last 21 years (since 1982) William Cheung has been the front page, lead story in over 40 different issues of various martial art magazines around the world (this is a documented fact that can easily be verified)...

Talk about a paradigm shift, by the way...one of the issues was entitled:"William Cheung's Wing Chun Revolution"...

The point I'm about to make is not one of simply trying to trumpet my Sifu's acomplishments, but rather it is this:

If, as some have suggested, he learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man...

HOW COME THAT PERSON HASN'T COME FORWARD TO CALL HIM A LIAR AND CLAIM THE CREDIT THAT'S TRULY HIS?

HOW COULD IT BE THAT THIS PERSON HASN'T SEEN OR HEARD OF ANY OF WILLIAM CHEUNG'S CLAIMS BY NOW?

DOESN'T THIS GREAT MARTIAL ARTS EXPERT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ANY MARTIAL ARTS PUBLICATIONS?

ANY MARTIAL ARTS CIRCLES? WEBSITES? ORGANIZATIONS?

NOTHING AT ALL? HOW COULD IT BE?

You might theorize that this person is now deceased...Okay...

BUT WHAT ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN?

THEIR OTHER STUDENTS?

NOT A WORD FROM ANYONE IN 21 YEARS........?!

Maybe, my friends, William Cheung is telling the truth..................

As for Garrett Gee...I don't know (yet) what to make of him.

[Grendel]

Hi Ultimatewingchun,

I am merely addressing the logical points of your post as an outsider sees them. No offense intended.


Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

While I believe as I've stated that the similarities between TWC and HFY are so remarkable that there must be an historical connection between them (perhaps even to the point of saying that they are one and the same)...and I also agree that the two systems are very different than the other wing chun systems...

It is possible that the similarities arise from William Cheung and Garrett Gee had the same ideas about Wing Chun and put them forth independently. Unlkely as that may seem to some.


Nonetheless...In my opinion...THE THEORIES PUT FORWARD BY SOME THAT WILLIAM CHEUNG MUST HAVE LEARNED TWC FROM SOMEONE ELSE OTHER THAN YIP MAN ...MAKE NO SENSE...!

He probably didn't learn it from Yip Man either IMO. He made it up. If it's effective, why worry?


Please put politics aside for a moment and make an honest attempt to follow my reasoning:

Over the last 21 years (since 1982) William Cheung has been the front page, lead story in over 40 different issues of various martial art magazines around the world (this is a documented fact that can easily be verified)...

Just Marketing though. I never read MA rags. They're all about self-promotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that.


Talk about a paradigm shift, by the way...one of the issues was entitled:"William Cheung's Wing Chun Revolution"...

It is not universally acknowledged that Cheung's changes to traditional Wing Chun were improvements. IMO, Yip Man's system needs no improvements, but its proponents need to learn it better.


The point I'm about to make is not one of simply trying to trumpet my Sifu's acomplishments, but rather it is this:

If, as some have suggested, he learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man...

HOW COME THAT PERSON HASN'T COME FORWARD TO CALL HIM A LIAR AND CLAIM THE CREDIT THAT'S TRULY HIS?

There is no such person, unless "he" is a composite of people Cheung has learned from in one way or another. Cheung gained credibility by saying he learned his modified system from Yip Man. If he had said he invented it, then he would have had an uphill marketing job. As Yip Man was the "standard," he plays off of that to differentiate, in a marketing sense, his (Cheung's) system.


NOT A WORD FROM ANYONE IN 21 YEARS........?!

Well, using your logic. Where is the back-up evidence for Cheung's claims? Where are all the folks who can support his story? No word leaked out from anyone in 21 years. Really.


Maybe, my friends, William Cheung is telling the truth..................

Maybe


As for Garrett Gee...I don't know (yet) what to make of him.
His claims that his lineage is secret does have a certain credibility given that non-Yip Man lines were always secret until YM's first generation of fighting students was in the ground or over-the-hill.

Regards,

[Phil Redmond]

>>Hunt1 wrote:
For example the cover of Bill Cheungs book on chun kui has a picture that violates many concepts of WC yet if you look at it from a weapon point of veiw it makes perfect sense.<<

Many concepts of centerline WC maybe, but not central line WC. On the cover he is facing the point of contact using a pak sao and a gan sao that turns into a fak sao while moving to the blind side. Look at the 5th clip from the top.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/woodchi.asp#

[TjD]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The point I'm about to make is not one of simply trying to trumpet my Sifu's acomplishments, but rather it is this:

If, as some have suggested, he learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man...

HOW COME THAT PERSON HASN'T COME FORWARD TO CALL HIM A LIAR AND CLAIM THE CREDIT THAT'S TRULY HIS?

HOW COULD IT BE THAT THIS PERSON HASN'T SEEN OR HEARD OF ANY OF WILLIAM CHEUNG'S CLAIMS BY NOW?

DOESN'T THIS GREAT MARTIAL ARTS EXPERT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO ANY MARTIAL ARTS PUBLICATIONS?

ANY MARTIAL ARTS CIRCLES? WEBSITES? ORGANIZATIONS?

NOTHING AT ALL? HOW COULD IT BE?

You might theorize that this person is now deceased...Okay...

BUT WHAT ABOUT THEIR CHILDREN?

THEIR OTHER STUDENTS?

NOT A WORD FROM ANYONE IN 21 YEARS........?!

Maybe, my friends, William Cheung is telling the truth..................

As for Garrett Gee...I don't know (yet) what to make of him.


not to fan the fire, but:

mabye that person doesnt exist to do the discrediting? :D if he doesnt exist, then there are no students/children out there to do the discrediting as well.


i really don't care about any of this at all, im just trying to point out your faulty reasoning.

[Rolling_Hand]

<<If, as some have suggested, he learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man...>>Vic

Red boat WCK > Wong Wah-Bo > Leung Jan > LEUNG BIK >Yip Man > William Cheung

"Some have suggested .....XYZ". They're the same group of "Characters" from X mountain that seem to have nothing better to do but to act disrespectful towards William Cheung and TWC for the last 20 years. These characters are anti-Shaolin WCK and with chips on their shoulders.

[reneritchie]

Hi Victor,

In Mainland China, many WCK people had only heard the name Yip Man in passing, something elders like Sum Nung would mention during stories. Even people in other towns like Pan Nam, if they didn't come to visit, were only names in the wind. This changed in recent times, of course, with more and more people going to China, and VCDs, internet, etc. becoming available, but if there was some mystery teacher in China (of WCK or Bagua or whatever), as some have suggested, and he passed away before the 1990s, he likely may never have known what William Cheung did or didn't to.

Another theory that's been tossed around is that William Cheung learned the same WCK as everyone else, but when in Australia he integrated the weapons and dummy footwork back into the sets, and then honed the art to be effective against the types of fighters he met there (larger, stronger, versed in Karate, Boxing, etc.) and that it was a natural evolution, as others have evolved the art.

Another thing to consider is that Yip Man learned another system, or taught a version of his sets that integrated the later material earlier. Yip Man worked out with Yuen Kay-San, he visited Chu Chong-Man and Cho On, so while unlikely (he probably would have shown at least one other person, or people would have seen it when he fought since there's no point learning something to fight with than trying to surpess it when you fight), it could possibly in some wild fantasy world be a possibility.

You do raise an interesting point, which Andrew Nerlich has raised before: if either Cheung sifu or Gee sifu taught the other, what would stop them from trumpeting that to the world, unless they had some agreement not to for whatever reason. It would seem to be in their best interest to show a unite front of some kind.

However, looking at it reasonably, we have to admit its *VERY UNLIKELY* Yip Man learned a different system from Leung Bik, since a) there's debate over whether or not Yip Man ever met Leung Bik, b) Leung Jan's teachings to *many* other students, including his nephews, doesn't look anything like TWC, c) branches coming from Leung Jan's teacher but not Leung Jan don't look anything like TWC, and d) branches coming from Leung Jan's teacher's sidai don't look anything like TWC. Considering all that, the story, while romantic and powerful in the classic archetypal sense, is a very hard sell.

Rgds,

[reneritchie]

His claims that his lineage is secret does have a certain credibility given that non-Yip Man lines were always secret until YM's first generation of fighting students was in the ground or over-the-hill.

If you're talking in China, the lineages were never secret, and were commonly known.

If you're talking in Hong Kong, Pao Fa Lien and Chi Sim WCK were in Hong Kong before Yip Man arrived. Sum Nung was in Hong Kong briefly in the early 50s doing seminars for one of the local associations, and his students started setting up shop in the late 60s, when Yip Man's students were almost all still alive and (literally) kicking. Cho On was also in HK for a time (I think before Yip Man, but might have been soon after).

If you're talking about in the West, then they were only "secret" because few bothered to mention them, or falsely told their students there were no other lines to protect their own rice bowls.

Leung Sheung, Tsui Sheung Ting, Leung Ting, and others all visited mainland teachers at one time or another, some even before Yip Man passed away, so there was never any secret, except from the rest of us ;)

[Rolling_Hand]

<<TWC is IMO simply William Cheung's revised "text" that he is using to teach WCK as he understands it.>>Terence

Terence,


Are you calling William Cheung a liar?

TWC: Leung Jan > Leung Bik > Yip Man > William Cheung

Get it?

Roger

[Phil Redmond]

Rene wrote:
>"Another theory that's been tossed around is that William Cheung learned the same WCK as everyone else, but when in Australia he integrated the weapons and dummy footwork back into the sets, and then honed the art to be effective against the types of fighters he met there (larger, stronger, versed in Karate, Boxing, etc.) and that it was a natural evolution, as others have evolved the art."<

I have a tape of an old 8mm movie we call "The Lost Footage" made when William Cheung went to HK circa 1979 to the VTAA to demonstrate the forms he learned from Yip Man. You can see the VTAA banners behind him while he demonstrates. He went there during the time another WC sifu claimed to be the Grandmaster of WC. The forms on that tape are the same as they are now except the dummy form which has more sections. Why would he demonstrate forms he made up in front of his peers?

>"Another thing to consider is that Yip Man learned another system, or taught a version of his sets that integrated the later material earlier. Yip Man worked out with Yuen Kay-San, he visited Chu Chong-Man and Cho On, so while unlikely (he probably would have shown at least one other person, or people would have seen it when he fought since there's no point learning something to fight with than trying to surpess it when you fight), it could possibly in some wild fantasy world be a possibility."<

There could be a possibility that Yip Man taught William Cheung something different. Even if it didn't come from Leung Bik since a lot of you don't believe the LB story. He was close to the young Cheung. Cheung was one of the few that accepted Yip Man's habit and even accepted Yip Man's wife who most thought was not good enough for Yip Man, (you know the story regarding his wife Rene). Also, if you look at Wong Sheung Leung's footwork on his video. It look closer to TWC than the "norm". Notice his wider stance as opposed to the closer knees of most other YMWCK. Similaer to what TWC does. WSL was a fighter as was Cheung. The two helped Yip Man's school get a rep for fighting. Who really knows though. The author of the Yuen Kay Shan article on you site says, "There are two famous fighters from Yip Man Wing Chun. William Cheung Cheuk Hing now in Melbourne, Australia, and Wong Sheung Leung now in Hong Kong." TWC works for me. All the controversy in the World won't make me go back to the WC I did before. I know better.
Phil

[yuanfen]

TWC works for me. All the controversy in the World won't make me go back to the WC I did before. I know better.
Phil
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phil- I know about IM's weaknesses in private life. Mentioning those provide no corroboration logically for TWC history.
The Leung Bik issue can also be logically separated from the TWC
history claims.
I did read Cheung's early claims in print and thought they were
preposterous and self serving.
I do not doubt that he is a skillfull individual.
Controversy? Not important.
I am glad that you are committed to TWC.
Each to their own cup of tea in wc.. TWC isnt mine.
But, plenty of room at the table- because I do not doubt that
William Cheung as a teenager was around Ip man.
Joy

[t_niehoff]

hunt1 wrote:

Terence, Yuanfen understands where I am going. You must first divorce yourself of the empty hand forms and their concepts. Then look objectively at the weapon forms what they teach and how things are applied weapon vs weapon then based only on this build empty hand forms.

For example the cover of Bill Cheungs book on chun kui has a picture that violates many concepts of WC yet if you look at it from a weapon point of veiw it makes perfect sense.H1

For me the principles are the same, and the application of those principles depends on how they are being used (weapon or empty hand, for example). Thus, to do what you suggest (build an empty hand system from the weapons) would, if one understood the concepts, should have the result as if we learned empty hand first. Unless, you are suggesting one not understand that principles are applied differently in different situations. What TWC does is concentrate on application on the outside gate and not infighting. TN

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

Rolling Hand wrote:

<<TWC is IMO simply William Cheung's revised "text" that he is using to teach WCK as he understands it.>>Terence

Terence, Are you calling William Cheung a liar?

TWC: Leung Jan > Leung Bik > Yip Man > William Cheung

Get it?

That's exactly what I said, that TWC is Cheung's way of teaching the WCK he learned from Yip Man (without going into the Leung Bik story). It's the same WCK (information) that others have. Or do you think that his finger is a "special" finger" ;) TN

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

WCK is WCK and there are many different ways of expressing it and teaching it. If it helps you to think of centerline vs. centralline, great; others see it as part and parcel of the same concept. Moving to the blind side (which has been a part of martial arts forever) or flanking is another thing that is just a part of WCK. The clamped knees in the YJKYM is to teach you something, how you apply it may differ (like if fighting on the inside or the outside). Lots of folks have figured out that the clamping teaches a mechanics and only use it when necessary, e.g., Wong, Hawkins, Fong Hon, and Ho Kam Ming (who learned directly from Yip and didn't have contact with Cheung). When we look for differences, we can easily find them; when we look for what is the same between lineages, we begin to see that they all have the same core. TN

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

The idea that William Cheung made TWC up by tweaking a little here and a little there from what he learned from Yip Man is ridiculous....

The FULL SIDE-STEP alone is worth its weight in gold...in terms of making TWC ...MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE...than ANY wing chun that traces its roots back to Yip Man (other than William Cheung)...

Then add the ENTRY. THE BLINDSIDE STRATEGY (which is NOT
emphasized anywhere else in YIP Man wing chun)...the positioning of the feet ON THE INSIDE OF YOUR OPPONENTS'LEG when in the crossleg position (ie.- his right leg and your right leg),
the positoning of the feet ON THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR OPPONENTS'
LEG) when in the parallel-leg position (ie.- his right leg and your left leg)....TO NAME BUT JUST A FEW EXAMPLES...

all adds up to a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE FIGHTING SYSTEM.

The problem here is one of DENIAL and JEALOUSY...and has been the case ever since William Cheung went public with TWC...

I can imagine the blow to the ego of those who, after being shown TWC by William Cheung circa 1979, were now told, in effect..."sorry guys, but the old man gave you the watered down version of what he knew...if you want to learn the real deal you'll have to recognize me as the Grandmaster and, in effect, start over....."

This being told to established sifus who had already been doing MODIFIED for twenty or thirty years...

and by modified wing chun I ONLY REFER to those who trace their lineage to Yip Man.

...Perhaps it was what he learned from Yuen Kay-San, or Chu Chong-Man, or Cho On...that he (Yip Man) taught privately
to Willliam Cheung....or perhaps it was from Leung Bik...

but wherever it came from...it was clearly something different and better...and its name is TRADITONAL WING CHUN...!

GET OVER IT..........

[reneritchie]

Victor,

Here's a funny story. At the first WC Friendship Seminar, we had a segment on TWC footwork, and most of the other WCK people acted as though it was from another planet. The next day, we had a segment on the Wang Kiu knife set, and everyone went happily about the footwork, until the TWC person smacked his head and asked how they could have a problem with TWC footwork but not the Wang Kiu knife footwork when it was almost the exact same thing.

Back when William Cheung came to NYC, how many of the people in his seminar knew the dummy, the pole, AND the knife already? How many had had the time to digest that material and realize the iterative development it gave the hands? In the old days, secrets were plentiful and William Cheung, willing to teach, was probably worth his weight in gold to many students, regardless of history.

One interesting idea that it does raise, however, is that of Chan Wah-Shun's WCK. Most of Yip Man's students don't keep their knees in to one-fist like Yuen Kay-San, Gulao, etc. do. Several do not train the 100/0 aspect when turning, etc. Could it be possible that this reflects Chan Wah-Shun's system, rather than Leung Bik's? That Chan Wah-Shun, large and powerful like William Cheung, had a different structure than the smaller, less physical WCK teachers, much as Cheung Bo had?

As to "better", IMHO that is a personal thing. Different students will require different approaches, and different fighters will feel comfortable with different aspects of the method. Anytime "better" is brought up as part of the discussion, I just chalk it up to that. Certainly, enough WCK practitioners of many lineages have kicked enough butt to show that.

Phil,

Not saying he would (don't know the man) but you been around the kung-fu world long enough to know there are endless degrees of boldness. Personally, I think it will forever remain a question of faith, since Yip Man is not around to say "sure, I taught him that" or "what the heck is that?".

Wong Shun-Leung came from a boxing footwork. He reportedly loved boxing. And he found footwork and structure within WCK that allowed him to express himself in that manner, perhaps like others found the engine and structure to support their preference for stillness. IMHO, one of the most brilliant aspects of WCK is its robustness.

And hey, if it works better *for you* that's the only important thing. Some people love your previous sifu and they'll stick with them forever. It's like music, everyone has slightly different taste. And who knows, maybe in 5 years another newer, specialler branch will come out of Shangdong province and we'll all want to switch to that! ;)

[TjD]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The idea that William Cheung made TWC up by tweaking a little here and a little there from what he learned from Yip Man is ridiculous....

The FULL SIDE-STEP alone is worth its weight in gold...in terms of making TWC ...MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE...than ANY wing chun that traces its roots back to Yip Man (other than William Cheung)...

Then add the ENTRY. THE BLINDSIDE STRATEGY (which is NOT
emphasized anywhere else in YIP Man wing chun)...the positioning of the feet ON THE INSIDE OF YOUR OPPONENTS'LEG when in the crossleg position (ie.- his right leg and your right leg),
the positoning of the feet ON THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR OPPONENTS'
LEG) when in the parallel-leg position (ie.- his right leg and your left leg)....TO NAME BUT JUST A FEW EXAMPLES...

all adds up to a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE FIGHTING SYSTEM.

The problem here is one of DENIAL and JEALOUSY...and has been the case ever since William Cheung went public with TWC...

I can imagine the blow to the ego of those who, after being shown TWC by William Cheung circa 1979, were now told, in effect..."sorry guys, but the old man gave you the watered down version of what he knew...if you want to learn the real deal you'll have to recognize me as the Grandmaster and, in effect, start over....."

This being told to established sifus who had already been doing MODIFIED for twenty or thirty years...

and by modified wing chun I ONLY REFER to those who trace their lineage to Yip Man.

...Perhaps it was what he learned from Yuen Kay-San, or Chu Chong-Man, or Cho On...that he (Yip Man) taught privately
to Willliam Cheung....or perhaps it was from Leung Bik...

but wherever it came from...it was clearly something different and better...and its name is TRADITONAL WING CHUN...!

GET OVER IT..........


wow. :eek: i really hope you dont believe that. how much experience have you had with WC practicioners of other lineages?

[t_niehoff]

TjD wrote:

wow. i really hope you dont believe that. how much experience have you had with WC practicioners of other lineages? TjD

Exactly -- it is all there. WCK is WCK. Some folks don't know it is all there, believe what they're told ("this is unique to us"), and become true believers. Then when they start seeing that "uniqueness" in others, it becomes - of course - a situation of "they stole it from us!" TN

Victor wrote:

The idea that William Cheung made TWC up by tweaking a little here and a little there from what he learned from Yip Man is ridiculous....GET OVER IT

If we get into comparing stories that are rediculous, I think the Leung Bik/secret system story will win hands-down. ;) Seriously though, TWC just emphasizes elements that are present, but just not as emphasized, in Yip Man WCK. WCK just gives us the pieces; we put them together for ourselves. Cheung put the pieces together for him, emphasizing those things he does well, and teaches that (TWC). The only problem with that approach is that many try to model him - like a clone (just look at most TWC websites and how they all look alike) -- instead of seeing beyond the superficial and finding how to best take all the pieces and figure out how to put it together for themselves. TN

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

In response to my last post, Travis writes..."I really hope you don't believe that. How much experience have you had with WC practioners of other lineages?"

The answer is...QUITE A LOT...

I studied with Moy Yat for 8 years prior to becoming a student of William Cheung, and I have done chi sao with...FOUR... of Yip Man's students:

Moy Yat
Victor Kan (when he visited Moy Yat's school)
Mak Po (when he visited Moy Yat's school)
William Cheung

Now don't get me wrong...the first three were very good, especially Victor Kan...

But William Cheung was (is) miles ahead of them, not just because of his own personal physical abilities; but more importantly...THE SYSTEM... he used: the structural differences in how he held his fuk, tan, bong....the strategies used..the footwork...that's right, you read correctly...THE FOOTWORK...
during chi sao...the responses to my attacks and counters THAT I HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE...etc.

and I'm just talking about chi sao...I've also done san sao with Moy Yat...again no comparison in terms of both personal differences and differences in system (with William Cheung)...

I've done chi sao, san sao, etc. with many other people over the last 20 years that I'm with William Cheung...people who trace their lineage to Yip Man...again...no comparison...

I am sorry, Rene, but I have to tell you once again that TWC is a better system...

WHICH IS WHY I DECIDED TO DO IT...

this is not meant as an insult to anyone...I'M JUST CALLING IT AS I SEE IT...

[Phil Redmond]

Rene, good point. Since I organized the first NYC seminar in 1984 I'm in a position to answer your query. I had to personally sign up every participant at the seminar. So I know who was there. There were so may people that we had to use the floor upstairs of the SOHO Fitness Center. Most in attendence were WCK people. I think I might have been the only person that knew the forms and weapons. I not sure if Robert Chu knew them then. Anyway, everyone there used the typical YMWCK stances/footwork. You should have seen their faces when we showed them TWC footwork. I was surprised when I saw the picture of Robert Chu on the cover of your book posing in TWC side neutral stance and the picture of him standing with his feet parallel and not pigeon toed. I still have the four videos of that seminar to prove that no one there knew TWC footwork. There is a copy floating around from Sonny Whitmore
His is only one tape though. Since I sponsered the seminar I had a friend do the official taping.
Phil

[KPM]

Wow! I didn't realize there were still people around that spouted this LOAD OF CRAP with such religious fervor still. I thought the rhetoric had faded through the years. And after all these years, NOTHING has been produced to corraborate William Cheung's story. This was an insult to the entire YMWCK family when it originally appeared in the magazines almost 20 yrs ago, and it is an insult now. You are being careful to only insult YMWCK, but you should be aware that many of the things you are calling "modified" in YMWCK exist in the other WCK families as well.

Keith



Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
The idea that William Cheung made TWC up by tweaking a little here and a little there from what he learned from Yip Man is ridiculous....

The FULL SIDE-STEP alone is worth its weight in gold...in terms of making TWC ...MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE...than ANY wing chun that traces its roots back to Yip Man (other than William Cheung)...

Then add the ENTRY. THE BLINDSIDE STRATEGY (which is NOT
emphasized anywhere else in YIP Man wing chun)...the positioning of the feet ON THE INSIDE OF YOUR OPPONENTS'LEG when in the crossleg position (ie.- his right leg and your right leg),
the positoning of the feet ON THE OUTSIDE OF YOUR OPPONENTS'
LEG) when in the parallel-leg position (ie.- his right leg and your left leg)....TO NAME BUT JUST A FEW EXAMPLES...

all adds up to a MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE FIGHTING SYSTEM.

The problem here is one of DENIAL and JEALOUSY...and has been the case ever since William Cheung went public with TWC...

I can imagine the blow to the ego of those who, after being shown TWC by William Cheung circa 1979, were now told, in effect..."sorry guys, but the old man gave you the watered down version of what he knew...if you want to learn the real deal you'll have to recognize me as the Grandmaster and, in effect, start over....."

This being told to established sifus who had already been doing MODIFIED for twenty or thirty years...

and by modified wing chun I ONLY REFER to those who trace their lineage to Yip Man.

...Perhaps it was what he learned from Yuen Kay-San, or Chu Chong-Man, or Cho On...that he (Yip Man) taught privately
to Willliam Cheung....or perhaps it was from Leung Bik...

but wherever it came from...it was clearly something different and better...and its name is TRADITONAL WING CHUN...!

GET OVER IT..........

[t_niehoff]

Phil,

Lots of Yip Man students -- Wong Shueng Leung, Hawkins Cheung, Fong Hon, Ho Kam Ming, etc. -- have horses with the knees not clamped, 50-50 weighting, etc. and I don't think they got it from William Cheung -- Fong and Ho were private students of Yip's, Wong was a senior of Cheung's, etc. And FWIW, Robert Chu doesn't use William Cheung's body structure (as we've - including TWC folks that have studied with Robert - told you before; btw, Cheung doesn't "own" WCK), he uses WCK body-structure as he learned it from Hawkins Cheung. Rene should be posting (shortly, I think) on his website an article that I recently wrote that describes this body structure; if you bother to read it, you'll see that while things may look similar on the surface, what is going on beneath the surface is very, very different. TN

Terence

[Phil Redmond]

Tranquilo hombre, I wasn't saying anything bad about Robert and I know that no one "owns" WCK. All I'm saying is that I saw a side neutral stance on the cover of the book. Period.
You know, after I wrote that I thought someone would say something, then I said, naw. They should know that I didn't mean anything. Guess I was wrong. I had never seen or heard of a side neutral stance in all of my other WCK studies until I saw TWC. People at the 1st NYC seminar questioned it. That's why I was surprised to see it on a book cover. That's all.
Phil

[tparkerkfo]

Hi victor,

Excellent posts for the most part. I am not sure what to make of William Cheungs methods. Part of me think it is a a simple extension to what Yip Man taught, another side says perhaps he learned somthing different. I just don't know.

But, I do have some questions. You say TWC is better. Better than what? You listed Moy Yat, Victor Kan, and Mok some one. Who else? Is it better than Tsui Shun Tin? Leung Sheung? Lok Yiu? Sum Nung? You see it as better than what you have seen. I may well be better, but you can only put it in context of your experience. You claimed you rolled only with 4 Yip Man students. Then how can you say it is better? Have you rolled with a good Leung Sheung, or Tsui Shun Tin student? How about Wong Sheung Leung?

I gues my point is not so much the questioning the abilities our your experience. But it is the system proper. I don't think you can say one is better than another becuase it is the individual. For example. Some of Yip Man's students suck and others were genious. Same with Leung Sheung's students and Wong Sheung Leung.Some of William Cheung students are not doubt excellent, but are there any that suck?

I suppose we could look at this in a couple ways. We could say Yip Man hid what he knew and only taught a small selelct few. Or we could say he knew a lot and only shared a small section of other stuff to a select few. In either case it doesn't mean it is better. Perhaps it sucked and that is why he didn't teach it. The ideas of blind side and such are not a secret supper style. Every style does that. heck, I learned a similar thing in Kenpo as a small child. Most all Kenpo techniques close the doors and step out to the side.

Is that better? I don't think it is neccesarily better. I think it is safer in many respects. But I think it takes a much higher degree of skill to go up the middle. But in either case, if you can engage and disrupt the person. then it really doesn't matter, does it.

Perhaps William's system is better, I don't know. But to me, your comments are the equivelent of saying, well my Mustang is the best. I drove several cars before, and this was the best one of them all. The Mustang is the best. Well, I would ask if you drove other cars like a Ferrari, Cadallac, Dodge Ram, etc. It may be the best, but you need a larger set to compare. William Cheung's system IS good. SO I don't think you can take any average person and compare that system to it. I think my teacher is incredible. But I think he is good because of his particular skills. Few will reach his level, as few will reach Cheung's level. I think it is a better gauge to see how good the students are. Can they dupplicate what the teacher does? To me, that would be a better test of how good a system is.

Tom
________
BMW M54 HISTORY (http://www.bmw-tech.org/wiki/BMW_M54)

[Rolling_Hand]

Victor Parlati wrote:

I am sorry, Rene, but I have to tell you once again that TWC is a better system...

WHICH IS WHY I DECIDED TO DO IT...

this is not meant as an insult to anyone...I'M JUST CALLING IT AS I SEE IT...

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

Hi Victor,

I agree!

But there's a twist here...

The last thing you need is another social engagment. J/K

hahaha....

humm!

Roger

[reneritchie]

Hi Phil.

Like you, Robert has experience in several branches of WCK, but rather than picking one, like you did with William Cheung, he tried to find what he felt was the essance of all of it, and express that as best suits himself. He still speaks very highly of William Cheung's WCK, and of Rick Spain's who he was eager to meet up with during his US tour a few years back, and of others.

Terence is correct, though. Have you had a chance to work out with Hawkins Cheung sifu? He maintains 50/50 as well, and doesn't pidgeon-toe much, and does some other things similar to William Cheung sifu. Robert is probably somewhere between the two, as he likes the stepping, but can and will shift when the situation calls for it.

On the cover, he's doing Gulao's Siu Fook Fu point but using his own body structure, which is primarily based on Hawkins Cheung. It's similar to William Cheung in the legs, but different in the upper body mechanics (I think we discussed this once on the WCK mailing list). Rather than walk around the opponent, it makes the opponent spin around for you (sort of like the difference between the "fast and loose" and the "smashing" game in ground fighting). It's just the way he feels WCK functions best, much as I imagine we all feel we have a way that examplifies the usefulness of the art.

I tend to find interesting things in many, sometimes divergent approaches. As I said in another thread, to me, nothing shows the genius of WCK more than its robustness.

Victor,

We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, again, its like cars. What's the best car? Depends if you're on the Autobahn, the offroad rally, or the soccer car pool.

[Rolling_Hand]

Terence wrote:

FWIW, Robert Chu doesn't use William Cheung's body structure (as we've - including TWC folks that have studied with Robert - told you before; btw, Cheung doesn't "own" WCK),

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

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it's a duck!

Have you forgotten your own words?

Why are you changing your lips now???

[Phil Redmond]

>>Terence is correct, though. Have you had a chance to work out with Hawkins Cheung sifu? He maintains 50/50 as well, and doesn't pidgeon-toe much, and does some other things similar to William Cheung sifu. Robert is probably somewhere between the two, as he likes the stepping, but can and will shift when the situation calls for it.

On the cover, he's doing Gulao's Siu Fook Fu point but using his own body structure, which is primarily based on Hawkins Cheung. It's similar to William Cheung in the legs, but different in the upper body mechanics (I think we discussed this once on the WCK mailing list). Rather than walk around the opponent, it makes the opponent spin around for you (sort of like the difference between the "fast and loose" and the "smashing" game in ground fighting). It's just the way he feels WCK functions best, much as I imagine we all feel we have a way that examplifies the usefulness of the art.<<

Well it's good to hear that our footwork didn't just come out of thin air since other people have similar footwork. Also, TWC spins the opponent around also. There's an example on my site. BTW, do you study Gulao also?

[t_niehoff]

Phil wrote:

Well it's good to hear that our footwork didn't just come out of thin air since other people have similar footwork. PR

Yes, it didn't come out of thin air, it came from WCK. ;) TN

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

Rolling hand wrote:

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it's a duck! Have you forgotten your own words?

Form choreography -- what I was talking about -- and mechanics are two different things (if you practice WCK I would assume you'd know that). The YJKYM is body-mechanics, not a stance and it is formless; if you understand the mechanics, you'll know what I mean, and if you don't understand the mechanics, then all you can do is focus on the superficial points, whether you 'pinch' or turn the toes, etc. TN


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

RR wrote:

To me, again, its like cars. What's the best car? RR

Good point. What I find interesting is that folks claiming to have "the best car" can't provide real proof claim (results). A true story: during the Cold War the US got a Russian MIG when a pilot defected, and the US wanted to compare the MIG capabilities to the US jets. So they asked their best test-pilot and fighter pilot, Chuck Yeager, to fly it. He flew the MIG against US pilots in US jets and won again and again. So the Generql said, "Ah, the MIG is superior." Yeager said, "No, the pilot is superior." To prove his point he flew the US jet against the MIG and again won. (BTW, Yeager is the only fighter pilot to shoot down, in WWII, a jet with a prop!). The point of the story is that WCK is the jet -- different jets like the different lineages of WCK may because of their emphasis, have different strengths and weaknesses -- and it is the great pilot that either brings out the best in the whichever jet or the mediocre pilot that is constrained by the jet. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Phil,

Hawkins Cheung sifu does a few things like William Cheung sifu, I don't know if this comes from Yip Man, or from William Cheung, but Hawkins Cheung sifu has that leg posture, also the whole-arm Huen Sao's in the beginning of his sets. If you ever get the chance, he's really cool to see in action. I'm not that inspired by big, athletic guys doing WCK, but a barely 5', barely 100lbs guy tossing people around is always inspirational.

Where's the example on your site? I'd love to see it!

No, I don't study Gulao, but I've had the good fortune of meeting Robert's Gulao sifu, Kwan Jong-Yuen, as well as hanging out with Jim Roselando, and due to the similarities to Sum Nung's method, and this quirk that seems to let me remember things about WCK, I've gained perhaps a tiny insight.

Terence,

Don't feed the trolls. Other than that, you're correct. Hawkins Cheung's form choreography is very different than William Cheung's, very much more in the range of Yip Man WCK sets most sub-branches do. Gulao, of course, has San Sik rather than Kuen To. Robert's sets are probably closer to Moy Yat's still than Hawkins Cheung, though with some of Hawkins Cheung sifu's signatures.

Excellent point on Chuck Yeager!

[Rolling_Hand]

Phil wrote:

I was surprised when I saw the picture of Robert Chu on the cover of your book posing in TWC side neutral stance and the picture of him standing with his feet parallel and not pigeon toed. I still have the four videos of that seminar to prove that no one there knew TWC footwork.

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

Robert Chu and TWC footwork (?)

Robert Chu and Gee Sim WCK Kuen faat (?)

Robert Chu and non-Koo Lo body-mechanics (?)

The good in heaven,

But the pure are not reborn.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Firstly...I'm not worried about any "social engagements".
Secondly...In case some have forgotten - Boztepe surrounded William Cheung with about 6 or 7 of his friends and then bullrushed him...showing absolutely ZERO wing chun skills over the 25 seconds that this "fight" lasted...Boztepe didn't get over it?

No...Boztepe was trying to "get over" on everybody else.

Now on to the real business at hand:

The wing chun that Yip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun was based on the centerline, which is the art that Yip Man taught in his school publicly. This centerline is a series of three different lines: one horizontal, traveling from the wing chun fighter's solar plexus to his opponents chin, one vertical which travels down the center of the wing chun fighter's body, and another vertical line which similarly moves down the center of the opponent's body. Together these imaginary lines define the theoretical framework of Chan Wah Shun's entire system of wing chun.

So according to Chan Wah Shun's teachings, the horizontal line becomes the axis around which all parries and blocks must revolve, and through which all offensive strikes must travel. Defensive actions become triggered by the "theory of the four gates", referring to the four imaginary zones created by the centerline boundaries. Whenever an opponent's attack moves into one of the gates, the Chan Wah Shun fighter will parry by rotating an arm into the endangered gate while, simultaneously, trying to keep the parrying arm's elbow positioned in the horizontal centerline. Offensive techniques are deployed in straight lines and ideally occur together with a defensive action such as a parry or a trapping technique.

Since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the Chan Wah Shun fighter is taught to keep his centerline properly aligned, positioned directly in front of the opponent. Then he can attack in a straight line, with straight punches, straight up the opponent's middle. Aggressive infighting reigns supreme. The clenched fist becomes the primary offensive weapon reinforced by secondary open hand work, elbows, and low kicks.

So when wing chun is based on the centerline, they fight square on. Everything moves in the center. And if they are standing in a front stance, all of their weight is usually placed on the back leg...so they can only move efficiently forwards and backwards. And they can't move sideways...at least not efficiently. And since their weight is (usually) on the back leg, their front stance is too narrow. Their base is too wobbly.

THEN ONCE THEY START TO MOVE IN, OPERATING ALONG THE CENTERLINE, THEY LOSE THE ABILITY TO TIGHTENUP THE TARGET AREAS ON THEIR OWN BODIES. THEY LEAVE THEMSELVESTO OPEN FOR ATTACK. AND FURTHER, BECAUSE OF THEIR USE OF THE CENTERLINE, A LOT OF THEIR TECHNIQUES WILL BREAK DOWN AND FAIL COMPLETELY....

THEY REMAIN FOREVER VULNERABLE TO OPPONENTS WHO CAN SWIFTLY SIDESTEP THE CENTERLINE CHARGE AND COUNTERATTACK FROM AN OBLIQUE ANGLE. ADDITIONALLY, TECHNIQUES DESIGNED TO OPERATE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ALONG A SINGLE IMAGINARY HORIZONTAL LINE PERIODICALLY WILL FAIL TO STOP BLOWS WHICH OUTFLANK THAT LINE. EXAMPLES WOULD INCLUDE THE BOXER'S LEFT HOOK AND UPPERCUT AS WELL AS SOME OF THE WIDE ANGLE BLOWS OF CHOY LI FUT....

But there is an older version of the art that Yip Man learned from his second master, Leung Bik. In this version, the term "centerline" refers only to the imaginary vertical line which runs down the center of the body. But the theoretical framework for the art consists of "the central line"...which is the area a practioner, without pivoting his hips, can cross his wrists at the lower, middle, and upper gates. More specifically, Leung Bik's wing chun requires not only the constant use of both arms throughout any combat engagement, but offensive and defensive hand techniques are operative ANYWHERE WITHIN THE PERIMETERS AS DETERMINED BY THE CENTRAL LINE THEORY...NOT JUST ALONG ONE IMAGINARY HORIZONTAL LINE....

FURTHERMORE, THE "CENTRAL LINE" ITSELF MAY BE THOUGHT OF AS AN IMAGINARY STRAIGHT LINE DRAWN FROM THE LEUNG BIK FIGHTER'S SOLAR PLEXUS TO THE POINT OF CONTACT WITH THE OPPONENT'S BODY INSIDE THE CENTRAL LINE PERIMETERS.

THE CENTRAL LINE THEORY ALTERS THE THE WING CHUN FIGHTING STYLE IN TWO SIGNIFICANT WAYS. FIRST, BECAUSE THE LOCATION OF THE CENTRAL LINE CHANGES FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE OPPONENT'S SPECIFIC TECHNIQUE, THE DANGER THAT A WING CHUN DEFENSIVE TECHNIQUE MIGHT BE OUTFLANKED BY THE ANGLE OF THE OPPONENT'S BLOW BECOMES VIRTUALLY ELIMINATED. THE BASIC TECHNIQUES OF WING CHUN WILL NO LONGER BREAK DOWN.

SECOND, SINCE THE OBJECT OF CENTRAL LINE THEORY IS TO KEEP THE OPPONENTS'S COMBAT MOVEMENT WITHIN CERTAIN FUNCTIONAL PERIMETERS, FOOTWORK (SUCH AS THE FULL SIDESTEP) AND OTHER EVASIVE STEPS SUDDENLY ASSUME PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. THE WING CHUN FIGHTER MUST NOW USE STANCES WHICH KEEP HIS WEIGHT EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED OVER BOTH FEET IN ORDER TO MAKE INSTANT ADJUSTMENTS IN RELATIONSHIP TO HIS OPPONENT'S POSITION. THE NATURE OF COMBAT CHANGES FROM AGGRESSIVE INFIGHTING TO A CALCULATED AND PROGRESSIVE ATTACK CAUTIOUSLY DEVELOPED FROM AN IMPENETRABLE DEFENSE IN COMBINATION WITH CONSTANT FLANKING MANEUVERS.

AN OPPONENT WITH A SWIFT SIDESTEP AND COUNTERATTACK NO LONGER REPRESENTS A MAJOR THREAT TO THE CENTRAL LINE FIGHTER.....


AND ONCE AGAIN...THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT TWC IS A BETTER SYSTEM....

And on another note, my good friend and colleague Phil Redmond seems to have forgotten that I was also at the February, 1984 NYC seminar given by William Cheung, and that I also already knew all the forms, weapons, and wooden dummy from my days with Moy Yat - and that I already had learned much of the TWC footwork the previous summer, in August, 1986...at the seminar GM Cheung gave in Boston...

That's alright, Phil..."I still luv-ya"...

[Phil Redmond]

Here are some small examples. I'll put up more vids to show better examples.
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/njseminar_2002.asp

Did you know that Hawkins Cheung used to hang out with William Cheung and Bruce Lee? He was the one they would send to the Philippino Cha Cha group in HK to "get" moves to bring back to Bruce and Cheung. If Robert learned the footwork from Hawkins that's all good. But his first exposure was at the 1984 seminar. He was doing pigeoned toed then. I know because I was watching him very closley because he had a group of people at the seminar circled around him. I walked over to him and told him to break it up, this is William Cheung's seminar. He was telling people,"You can't trap two arms with one arm. That's a myth" I'll check the tape today to make sure I quoted him right as I want to be fair.
Phil

[Ultimatewingchun]

Near the end of my last post I said that I first learned TWC at a seminar held in August, 1986....

I meant to say...August, 1983.


And on another note... is that the same Robert Chu...Phil...who at that Feb. 1984 seminar asked William Cheung to do chi sao with him... and then tried to give William Cheung "a hard time" and immediately got... POUNDED...as a result of which he (Robert Chu) began doing the slowest, most cautious rolling hands (luk sao) I have ever seen in my life...and then...most gratefully and humbly...
thanked "Grandmaster Cheung" for accomodating his request to do chi sao..?

Yes...I believe it was THAT Robert Chu...

In fact, it's the same Robert who William Cheung had in mind when he (William Cheung) grabbed me in the corridor by the elevator after the September, 1984 NYC seminar wherein he appointed me, you, and Sonny Whitmore to begin teaching classes...and he (William Cheung) told me to make sure "those guys behave themselves"...

the same Robert Chu who he (William Cheung) knew would try to make trouble in an attempt to take over the classes...

Yes...it was that Robert Chu who I told... in no uncertain terms, as I know you recall because you were there....that he was welcome to come to our new school but he will just be another student...not one of the instructors...and as you may recall, we never saw him again after that.....

[hunt1]

I must have missed it. Knocking Robert Chu proves what?

[Ultimatewingchun]

The truth is the truth...the fact that some decide to call it "knocking" doesn't change anything...

LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY....

[yuanfen]

AND ONCE AGAIN...THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT TWC IS A BETTER SYSTEM....

((Victor- Your perception is clear enough- but are capital letters really needed??))


Yes...I believe it was THAT Robert Chu...


((Victor- your personal references above do not seem to illustrate any coherent point!!))

[Phil Redmond]

I have talked to Robert Chu since our NY days through emails. I have no ill feeling towards him. He still teaches WCK and went on the become a TCMD which is an accomplishment I didn't complete. I respect him for that. I wasn't trying to knock him at all. What happened in the past is just that, the past. Let's move on.
Phil

[Jim Roselando]

Hello all,


Good to see this discussion still going on its original purpose! Not! Lol

Victor,


Please take no offense (as I will be frank with you) to this but you are a prime example of how the “one and only or secret special art” stories can cause people to believe in what is next to impossible as gospel no matter what facts can be shown.

The whole Leung Bik story is dated. Leung Jan’s teaching was consistent from both places he taught and from all known lineages still around. It is also consistent with other lineages which makes sense since they all come from the Red Boat.

The fact that you believe in Leung Bik shows you really don’t understand the Chinese Family mentality of Kung Fu. A family style is just that. Normally not taught to non-family and sometimes close friends can learn if they are lucky. If! Big If! Yip ever met the ever-elusive Leung Bik then there would be a fat chance in hell that a member of the Leung family would just give away their secret family art to some kid that they didn’t know from squat is ridiculous. Especially since they didn’t even teach their special family art to some of they’re longest and most trusted students like Chan Wah, Lo Kwai, etc.

Plus! If! Big if again, what you are doing is the real Leung family WC then that would mean he taught his own nephew the wrong stuff in Koo Lo?

So, you really need to think about the stuff you believe in, as it makes no sense. Maybe, when there was less info. around to cross check and compare with, the story could sell but now a days it’s not even remotely believable!

How about another example of why it makes no sense! If Wong Wah Bo taught Fok Bo Chuen and Leung Jan, and both of them taught/preserved a Kung Fu that was almost identical, then if what you say was true that would mean Wong Wah Bo only taught Leung Jan the real secret stuff and a “modified” version to Fok Bo Chuen or perhaps he taught Leung Jan both a secret (real version) and the same modified he taught Fok since he by your views had knowledge of both versions.

TWC has very little similarities to Leung Jan’s teaching. There are only a couple of things that might be similar which we can discuss on a different thread if you like but 90% of the art is more similar to Yip Man’s teaching with some twists/modifications.

Next: How about this mind-blowing story “I” once heard (a long time ago) about TWC and Willeum Cheung. There was a rumor floating around that the “so-called” mainland style that Willeum Cheung got exposure to before going to Aus. was actually Pin Sun WC! Hence the reason for your so-called “blind side” emphasis and slightly different foot placement! He then took the little bit of info. he was exposed to and combined it with his YMWC and then organized his own art making use of the knife footwork rather than the standard methods calling it TWC.

Now! I am not saying this is true or not but what makes it any more true (or less true) than any other stories floating around?


Well, I think the best thing for all of us to do is discuss WC without placing any lineage titles on our posts that way we all can just discuss the WC without the extra issues. Just my thoughts.


Have to run!

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Victor,

I want to say that the majority of your post was an excellent write up and better than most I have seen. I have some “issues” with the stuff in caps as I think it is coming from a limited POV. But over all it is good and demonstrates clearly the differences in philosophies of TWC and “Modified” WC.



One of the points I want to ask though, is if there is another version that Leung Jan knew, why don’t we see it in other parallel systems. Perhaps Leung Jan had other experience outside wing chun, he was taught some unique stuff by his teachers that didn’t get passed on to the other boat members, or that he made it up or if you prefer he refined it. But in any case he only taught a couple people, most notably Leung Bik.

I don’t understand this as people who teach openly to pass on the art, why teach a faulty system. Face is very important in china and one can be judged based on their students. Would Leung Jan or even Yip Man risk the loss of reputation from teaching the fake wing chun. In Yip Man’s world it could be more severe as that was his lively hood and his students were making a name for wing chun. Why teach the inferior stuff that is fundamentally flawed to people that would go out and test it. Just doesn’t make sense to me.

Tom

[yylee]

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

:D

[Rolling_Hand]

<<Cheung had his own people up there too.>>Wuji

**Wrong, Cheung was alone!

<<The issue isn't whether Boztepe showed good Wing Chun skills in attacking.>>Wuji

**Is jumping from behind considered good wing chun skills?

[Ultimatewingchun]

And since we are now on a bury-the-hatchet mission...let me also say that I believe that the two systems...Chan Wah Shun's and Leung Bik's...are kind of like two sides of one and the same coin. Needless to say, I look upon one more like the"heads" and the other as "tails"...but still the same coin.

Put another way: the CWS system is very useful if one is fighting in very close quarters (ie.- a room or a space that's only 6' feet wide)...meaning using the horizontal centerline as the axis around which just about everything happens...makes sense because the is no space available to do it differently...(that is, it's theoretically possible, but unlikely that one would be able to use the flanking maneuvers and footwork)...

BUT...even in such a space it is still VERY possible to use the Leung Bik idea of parallel and cross leg principles described in an earlier post, as well as the blindside strategy...

Very possible...but not defintely so...given the limited space...so knowledge and skill in the CWS system would be very helpful...
as would, quite possibly...some grappling.

How's that for coming back to one of my favorite subjects?

But seriously, yes, you might have to grapple to some extent in such a scenario; but for the purposes of our present discussion...
the two systems are like two different STRATEGIES that one and the same fighter might have to employ, given the circumstances of the moment...kind of like cousins..if not brothers...one standing
somewhat taller than the other because he can do more... since he has more weapons in his arsenal, so to speak...

I also believe that it's quite probable that Yip Man may have given some bits and pieces of the Leung Bik puzzle out to others besides William Cheung - to whom he clearly gave the whole picture.

Perhaps this accounts for why some of Yip Man's students and granstudents do the 0/100, and others, like Wong Shun Leung, do the 50/50 weight distribution, as one example. (Others I know of who primarily use 50/50 are Victor Kan, Moy Yat, and Leung Sheung...but take a look at Leung Ting as well as many others and there is the 0/100.

The same applies to the "facing the point of contact" principle taught by Leung Bik...I've seen some (like Wong Shun Leung) do a little of this - although without the corresponding footwork....

As for Robert Chu...except for the preposderous assertion that the Leung Bik story might "have been made up by members of the restaurant worker's union in order to gain Yip Man more notoriety" - WHICH MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE...
the book written by Chu, Rene Ritchie, and the someone else whose name at the moment I have forgotten...is for the most part
...excellent...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Before getting to the issue of secrecy...let me state once again that I believe that Boztepe, along with Leung Ting, are the two biggest FRAUDS to ever come upon the wing chun world...Great public relations guys...incredible, in fact...but NO real substance
to back it up...

I do understand the issue of secrecy...Moy Yat was a master at that ...

Here's my belief about Yip Man and secrecy...he was very traditional Chinese in his thinking, (ie.- you only teach a few, very select students...usually being your own sons, nephews, etc.)...

but found himself in a most unusual circumstance after the communist revolution...as a rich man who was now without any means of support whatsoever...forced to make a living by the only means he knew how...teaching wing chun.

But I believ that he must have made a compromise with his "principles" and therefore decided to only teach the modified (Chan Wah Shun) version publicly and withheld the traditional(Leung Bik) version...

reserving it for those closest to him - and in particular - to those who were most like a son as well as being his "best" student
(ie.- a fighter)...like William Cheung.

On an earlier post on a different thread I had a conversation going for awhile with Rolf Clausnitzer, wherein I told him of a converation I had with Moy Yat back in 1975...long before anyone had anything other than great things to say about William Cheung...

I asked Moy Yat who was the best of Yip Man's fighters - and the immediate response was Cheung Chuk Hing (William Cheung), Wong Shun Leung, and Bruce Lee...

What I didn't mention to Rolf on that post (because I found him to be such a gentleman, and very knowledgeable, and therefore chose not to say things that he might take as one-ups-manship)
...but nonetheless... I will say it now...

My very next question to Moy Yat was..."and of the three, who was the best?"....

to which he promptly answered: Cheung Chuk Hing.


That is why, in my opinion, Yip Man gave the whole nine yards to William Cheung...as well as the fact that Yip Man genuinely felt close to William, in terms of their personal relationship...

As regards Yip Man's two sons - keep in mind that he was in Hong Kong 16 years before they even came to join him...

also keep in mind that the two sons had a very strained and difficult relationship with their father due to the opium problem and the fact that he divorced their mother and married a woman much younger...

so the two sons learned mainly from Leung Sheung and others...

in other words...not the Leung Bik version of wing chun.

[reneritchie]

Victor,

You're writing a lot about the "Chan Wah Shun" system, but have you ever seen it? Have you seen what Ng Jung-So taught and what Chan Yiu-Min taught and what Lui Yiu-Chai taught? If not, what gave you your ideas about "Chan Wah Shun" system?

TWC seems, to me, to be a very good system for taller people, since it gives them the bigger circles their longer limbs would require, and gives them the ability to maintain space which their longer limbs could exploit. If Chan Wah Shun really was much bigger than most of his peers, perhaps he valued that aspect of WCK as well?

As for the assertion about Leung Bik, several of Yip Man's students, including Wang Kiu publicly, have stated it was a story created by Yip Man's friend Lee Man (a Foshan native who routinely took tea at Tin Hoi with Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San, Cheung Bo, and other WCK greats) as a hook, along with promoting the folk story about Yim Wing-Chun and Ng Mui. Yip Man's early students in Foshan don't recall ever hearing about a Leung Bik, and other members of lineage don't recall either until Leung Ting (who used to seek out Lee Man for his stories) began promoting it. Everyone can choose what to believe for themselves, since its now unprovable and strictly a matter of faith, but IMHO needs to be removed as an element of serious discussion on the art itself (I'm sure everyone's WCK can stand up to discussion beyond the need for famous ancestry).

WRT stories about Robert Chu. I'm sure you know some of what other TWC and other NYC people say about you, and about some of the stories floating around about William Cheung. Everyone has stories about them, you, me, our friends, our kung fu relatives, etc. some true, some not true. Everyone has a past, even Yip Man as you also brought up and Joy quite rightly pointed out was irrelevant to the discussion.

Phil,

As I said, I think Robert falls somewhere between William Cheung sifu and Hawkins Cheung sifu in his footwork. He likes William Cheung's strategy of stepping quite a bit, though he uses Hawkins Cheung's upper body (bridges, pressure, etc.).

Wujidude,

Sounds just as unlikely a story. Common sense can help sort through most of this anyway.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


I would like to hear some of your thoughts on my post.

I am stating some facts about Leung Jan's teaching and where it comes from and how the two lineages stemming from Wong Wah Bo are scary similar. I would like to hear your views on that and other things I posted?

If TWC is the Leung family WC then I guess he taught his own family (nephew) wrongly in Koo Lo and I guess his own teacher taught Leung Jan's classmate the wrong stuff to? Etc Etc


:confused:


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

I totally disagree with the idea that TWC is better for bigger people and modified better for smaller people...

IT'S COMPLETELY THE OTHER WAY AROUND...

which is why the outflanking maneuvers, footwork, and strategy of TWC is especically needed by the smaller person when confronted by the bigger, charging straight forward...bull...

Have you forgotten (conveniently?) why Leung Jun wanted to reserve the traditional system for his sons - knowing that they someday might be confronted by the much larger, stronger
Chan Wah Shun - which is exactly what happened!

[kj]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
so the two sons learned mainly from Leung Sheung and others...

Nuh-ugh. From others later on, not Leung Sheung. That's how stories get started. ;)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[reneritchie]

Victor,

That's only true at lower levels. At higher levels, when you learn to control balance and momentum, the smaller circle, the better control, will win. If you read the accounts of the older, smaller, etc. WCK people, that's how they won.

I haven't forgotten anything, just the opposite. The story is senseless and self-contradictory, and taken almost word for word from the old Taiji story about Chen seeing Yang Lu-Chang peaking over his fence and making up a different system for Yang so he wouldn't learn real Chan TJQ. And even in Cheung sifu's story, Leung Bik, real system and all, still gets beaten and driven out, proving the "real" system cannot beat larger opponents, and cannot beat "unreal" WCK. Bad story. Unbelievable story. It's like basing your whole self-being on little red riding hood.

[reneritchie]

Others I know of who primarily use 50/50 are Victor Kan, Moy Yat, and Leung Sheung...

KJ or John can verify, but I've never seen 50/50 in Leung Sheung other than the YJKYM...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Why would Leung Bik teach TWC to Yip Man...?

Since he wasn't a relative or a close friend? Who knows? Would you like me to speculate?

If you follow my reasoning about why Yip Man taught ANY king fu to strangers...he was virtually homeless...and who could deny that this was indeed what happened and why it happened...

then is it such a stretch to then theorize that ...maybe Leung Bik was in dire straits at the time that he met Yip Ma ? - who was still rich at that time...Maybe Yip man paid him handsomely...in silver...as he did Chan Wah Shun, years earlier?

Maybe Leung Bik just took a liking to Yip Man at that point in his life (Leung Bik was already a senior citizen at the time they met)..
and looked kindly upon him?

WHO KNOWS WHY?

[Phil Redmond]

You wrote:
>>TWC has very little similarities to Leung Jan’s teaching. There are only a couple of things that might be similar which we can discuss on a different thread if you like but 90% of the art is more similar to Yip Man’s teaching with some twists/modifications.<<

Didn't Leung Jan teach a different WCK when he retired to his hometown of Gulao without the forms? Is there anybody who knows the WCK he taught in Fatshan?
Phil

[Ultimatewingchun]

Boztepe has never done ANYTHING...other than what I said he did
to convince anyone...whether it be in the wing chun world...the Brazilian jiu-jitsu world...any martial art world...that he's anything other than a thug who pulls the plug on ever having to back up his claims...or ...in the case of Germany - trying to stack the deck!

In terms of little red riding hood....it's a fairy tale to think that the system taught by William Cheung is not far beyond the other sytem in question... and when we use the TWC footwork, strategy, and maneuvers to gain control...as I said on a much earlier thread we then square up and go to work right on the horizontal centerline...get the clue, Rene...

[KPM]

Victor wrote:
The wing chun that Yip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun was based on the centerline, which is the art that Yip Man taught in his school publicly. This centerline is a series of three different lines: one horizontal, traveling from the wing chun fighter's solar plexus to his opponents chin, one vertical which travels down the center of the wing chun fighter's body, and another vertical line which similarly moves down the center of the opponent's body. Together these imaginary lines define the theoretical framework of Chan Wah Shun's entire system of wing chun.

---Cool! So what's your reference? I for one would like to learn more about CWS's system. What are you basing your info on? From what I've seen, info about CWS's system is very rare and hard to come by. I'd be interested in any valid source material you might have. Or are you simply basing your entire thesis on what William Cheung told you?

Victor further stated:
So when wing chun is based on the centerline, they fight square on. Everything moves in the center. And if they are standing in a front stance, all of their weight is usually placed on the back leg...so they can only move efficiently forwards and backwards. And they can't move sideways...at least not efficiently. And since their weight is (usually) on the back leg, their front stance is too narrow. Their base is too wobbly.

---Within the Augustine Fong lineage I learned that the vertical line going through the central axis of the body is the motherline. The plane of interaction extending from my motherline to the opponent's motherline is refered to as the centerline. Facing is simply a matter of aligning my motherline with the opponent's. It doesn't matter if I am "square on" with the opponent or pivoted, or even turned completely to the side. I haven't seen any YMWCK yet that feels obligated to fight "square on" in order to make use of the centerline. I can move laterally from a front stance just fine. I learned to fight from a "pivoted position" that TWC seems to call the "neutral side stance." The faulty info you are detailing is exactly the info that was in those old articles years and years ago. It was inaccurate then and it is inaccurate now.


THEY REMAIN FOREVER VULNERABLE TO OPPONENTS WHO CAN SWIFTLY SIDESTEP THE CENTERLINE CHARGE AND COUNTERATTACK FROM AN OBLIQUE ANGLE. ADDITIONALLY, TECHNIQUES DESIGNED TO OPERATE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ALONG A SINGLE IMAGINARY HORIZONTAL LINE PERIODICALLY WILL FAIL TO STOP BLOWS WHICH OUTFLANK THAT LINE. EXAMPLES WOULD INCLUDE THE BOXER'S LEFT HOOK AND UPPERCUT AS WELL AS SOME OF THE WIDE ANGLE BLOWS OF CHOY LI FUT....

----Utter and total nonsense! The pivot/shift deals with these circumstances just fine. I train to stop a boxer's hook or a looping Choy Li Fut style blow all the time.


AND ONCE AGAIN...THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE THAT TWC IS A BETTER SYSTEM....

---Then maybe you should open your eyes and take a look at what others are doing. Nothing you have described is unique to TWC. Augustine Fong's system has made use of a "centerline" concept very similar to what you are describing, uses a "side stance", goes to the "blind side" as often as it goes up the middle, and even uses a step similar to TWC's "pivot step." Fong Sifu calls it a "brace step" and draws it from the knife set. And Fong's method is not that unique. I have seen similar elements in other YMWCK versions. Really Victor, the whole Leung Bik story is out-dated and discredited. The whole inferior "modified" WCK story is full of holes and based on a description of "modified" WCK that none of us with any solid background in YMWCK practice. The core of the "modified" WCK criticisms could be applied to YKSWCK just as easily to YMWCK. So how did what Yuen Kay Shan learned get "modified"? Through the years TWC has proven one thing.....that it is a valid and effective approach to WCK. But what it has never proven is that it ever existed independantly of William Cheung. So put away the TWC Bible and learn to play well with others. :-) Drop the old rhetoric that has never been proven and that has never really benefited anyone.

Keith

[Phil Redmond]

>>TWC seems, to me, to be a very good system for taller people, since it gives them the bigger circles their longer limbs would require, and gives them the ability to maintain space which their longer limbs could exploit. If Chan Wah Shun really was much bigger than most of his peers, perhaps he valued that aspect of WCK as well?<<

NOT. The big circles you see are taught to beginners so that they can get gist of the Lau (slipping) Sao concept. Later on the circles become like a snake winding around bamboo. A circle can be the size of this planet or as small as a pinpoint. TWC if waaaay safer for a smaller person.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor and Phil!


Victor,


Why would Leung Bik teach TWC to Yip Man...?

Since he wasn't a relative or a close friend? Who knows? Would you like me to speculate?

Yes. JR

If you follow my reasoning about why Yip Man taught ANY king fu to strangers...he was virtually homeless...and who could deny that this was indeed what happened and why it happened...

Ok! Now, I guess Lun Gai, Gwok Fu and others from his Futshan were being taught because? He wasn't poor then! JR

then is it such a stretch to then theorize that ...maybe Leung Bik was in dire straits at the time that he met Yip Ma ? - who was still rich at that time...Maybe Yip man paid him handsomely...in silver...as he did Chan Wah Shun, years earlier?

It is a stretch when you read my entire post because that would mean that Wong Wah Bo taught Leung Jan two systems and his other student (Fok Bo Chuen) just a modified version? Does that make sense? You need to go back further than just Yip Man my friend to show the likelyhood of this story and unfortunately it is next to impossible! JR

Maybe Leung Bik just took a liking to Yip Man at that point in his life (Leung Bik was already a senior citizen at the time they met)..
and looked kindly upon him?

Highly highly unlikely! You really have no idea about Kung Fu families that only keep Kung Fu within the family/close friends. JR

So, Bik meets some random WC kid and says; Well, he is a nice boy! I will give him my families secret art because I like him yet his dad spent numerous years with others and never liked anyone else enough to show them the secrets. Especially when his schools reputation was on the line with his students fighting Kong Sao (carrying the torch of his legacy). JR

Also! You must remember that you need to look at many things when trying to prove your beliefs and since Leung Jan's own family was taught exactly what the others were taught that would account for something. JR

WHO KNOWS WHY?

I would say; Who knows why its not likely! Read my posts more carefully and we can see something that adds up versus just a belief in someones story. JR


Phil,


Didn't Leung Jan teach a different WCK when he retired to his hometown of Gulao without the forms?

Yes and no! Different? NO! No forms? Yes JR

Is there anybody who knows the WCK he taught in Fatshan?

Take a look at the movements from Leung Jan's Siu Lin Tao set that Fung Chun sifu is performing on Fung Keung's web site. Thats a good place to start comparing! We preserve it as the root of our Koo Lo art! JR


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

Never existed independently from William Cheung?

So we are back to the "Cheung must have invented it" theory?

If that's the case...then GOD BLESS HIM... for the man must be an incredible genius to have come up with all of these principles, strategies, footwork, and techniques all by himself..!

Now I will truly worship at his alter...

As for Augustine Fong...if what you say is true...then let's add him to the list of those who received some of Leung Bik's teachings from Yip Man...

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor!


What is it about the Leung Bik story that has you so in love with it that you cant see some facts or historical links? Is it that enchanting? Everything you say goes back to Leung Bik, Leung Bik, Leung Bik! Wow man. Its really amazing!

I guess! Seeing how you are that much in love with this story you must believe that Wong Wah Bo taught two different styles and Leung Jan taught his own family wrongly! All evidence shows its not possible.


Oh well, no reason to continue this. Perhaps you may want to print out my original post and read it one day when you are willing to read with an open mind. Much of that info. will show you how your beliefs are not possible IMO.


Regards,

[AndrewS]

Victor,

I don't speak ill of your sifu, and I'd appreciate it if you kept quiet about mine.

If you want to claim to have the secret key to Wing Chun, list your fighters by weight class and let's find a MMA promotor who'll sanction a brawl on neutral ground.

Exactly what gain to the art occurred the last time one of these little flamewars cropped up? To yourself?

Later,

Andrew

[kj]

Originally posted by reneritchie


KJ or John can verify, but I've never seen 50/50 in Leung Sheung other than the YJKYM...

Verified. Only when we are wrong, LOL.
- kj

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jim:
I think you have me confused with someone else...

as I said in a post entitled GET REAL ABOUT WILLIAM CHEUNG, much earlier on this thread...

"Perhaps it was what he learned from Yuen Kay-San, or Chu Chong-Man, or Cho-On, or Leung Bik...that he (Yip Man) taught privately to William Cheung....

but wherever it came from...it was clearly something different and better..."

I am not the guy who thinks he has to prove EXACTLY where and from whom Yip Man learned what we now refer to as TWC...

All I care about is that it exists...it's better... and it's highly unlikely
(as I've posted earlier and have given reasons for believing)..that William Cheung learned it from anyone else other than Yip Man...

It's now 5:00 PM, Friday, April 18th, and I'm shutting off my computer and going home to see my lovely wife...

IT'S BEEN REAL, GUYS....

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by kj


Verified. Only when we are wrong, LOL.
- kj
Hi KJ,

Just chiming in here to agree with you. No 50/50 in Leung Sheung Wing Chun ever except when we're wrong. 50/50 can be valid for those who train in it, but we don't because we see the 0/100 weighting as an advantage.

Rene,
Thanks for axing for clarification. :D Wouldn't want a misconception to proliferate unchecked. You and I share a high regard for posterity. :p

Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

No, Andrew...there's not much to be gained...but this wujidude guy is just a bit too much to let it slide....

It seems as though everytime time a thoughtful discussion arises about TWC...someone has to try and use Germany, 1986, as a
measuring rod for TWC....

and everytime time that happens we MUST respond in order to set the record straight... which is... that event proved...NOTHING...

THAT'S THE WAY IT WILL ALWAYS BE...regardless of where the chips are gonna fall...

[tparkerkfo]

Victor,

I have yet to hear any responses, but I'll post a couple things any way. I am losing faith in many things your saying because of many of your comments. You say that the sons learned from Leung Sheung. That is not correct from my understanding. Also, you were talking about the 50/50 footwork and listed Leung Sheung as 50/50. Again, wrong. You say these like they are true. I am lossing credibility in what your saying. Also, you asked Moy Yat who is the best, but what makes Moy Yat's word that weighty? Did he know all of Wing Chun's practicioners? Did he know Leung Sheung and was he considered a fighter?

Tom
________
RHODE ISLAND MEDICAL MARIJUANA (http://rhodeisland.dispensaries.org/)

[yuanfen]

Jim R Sez;
Why would Leung Bik teach TWC to Yip Man...?

((Why not. If he chose to. And why is it difficult to see Ip Man's great ability to weld things intoa cohesive art. The evidence is there today))

Ultimatewonchun sez:
It seems as though everytime time a thoughtful discussion arises about TWC...someone has to try and use Germany, 1986, as a
measuring rod for TWC...

((You invite commentary with your posts- not much thoughtful discussion- but considerable propaganda))

Andrew S sez:
I don't speak ill of your sifu, and I'd appreciate it if you kept quiet about mine.

((Good principle to follow))

Jim R sez;
Ok! Now, I guess Lun Gai, Gwok Fu and others from his Futshan were being taught because? He wasn't poor then! JR

((Because he chose to. Wing chun folks always need other hands-
you even teach some so that you can have hands to work with.
Not strange at all))

Jim R sez:Highly highly unlikely! You really have no idea about Kung Fu families that only keep Kung Fu within the family/close friends. JR

((Leung Bik wasa wing chun uncle of IM))

Ultimatewingchun sez:
As for Augustine Fong...if what you say is true...then let's add him to the list of those who received some of Leung Bik's teachings from Yip Man...

((Nice of you to add him to your list. Too bad he wouldnt know
about it or care!!!))

((Its better to discuss substance and compare and analyse rather than repeating that one's own line is the best--- boring when it happens))

[dfl]

The commonly given reason for YM taking on students in Fatshan was that while he was not exactly poor at the time of the Japanese occupation, his assets were frozen, and he was unwilling to collaborate with the Japanese, making him de facto poor. His friend the owner of a cloth factory was helping him out, and to return the favor, he agreed to teach his sons and some other friends.

[yuanfen]

makes sense. Illustrates theproblem of rushing into generalizations by induction from selected facts.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by dfl
The commonly given reason for YM taking on students in Fatshan was that while he was not exactly poor at the time of the Japanese occupation, his assets were frozen, and he was unwilling to collaborate with the Japanese, making him de facto poor. His friend the owner of a cloth factory was helping him out, and to return the favor, he agreed to teach his sons and some other friends.
Did he teach them any "secret" such as bjj or the rattan rings? :D :D :D

Regards,

[reneritchie]

John,

Yip Man's house was burned down during the Japanese occupation and Yuen Kay-San and his sons helped battle the blaze and provided Yip Man a place to stay following. Yuen Kay-San did use Rattan Rings for one, specific splitting power drill (not for Chi Sao ;) ), so while I haven't heard of Yip sifu teaching any of his Foshan students the Rattan Ring, he might well have found one lying around the Yuen estate!

As for BJJ, if he was still alive, you could write "Helio vs. Yip, Zuffa make it happen!"

FWIW - Wang Kiu and the others who subscribe to the "no Leung Bik" account maintain as well that Yip Man didn't go to school in HK, thus making it even more unlikely. Perhaps someone on the HK side could one day check St. Stephans enrollement records and put that part, at least, to rest.

Joy,

Yip Man's WCK seems in large part very similar to the Chan Wah-Shun WCK passed down in China from the likes of Ng Jung-So. Unlike other branches which have meddled the teachings of one or more sifu, everything in Yip sifu's branch seems very consistent and integrated, and even the stories about what came from Leung Bik are innacurate (for example, that the Jum Sao that was changed to Gaun Sao by Wong Shun-Leung came from Leung Bik - it is actually the standard way Chan Wah Shun and other lineages do the section in China).

IMHO, it is constrained entirely to personal belief, the principles all being long dead, and adds little or nothing to the historical discussion.

[yuanfen]

Rene- of course these things are judgement calls. Many things in martial arts history-specially wing chun are just that.

Ip Man didnt write much. The folks that flocked to learn from him
had heard or knew of his skills.

About Wang kiu and his stories---he wasnt around Ip Man in his pre HK days- and he has his stories. Without Ip Man good chance no one would have heard of Wang Kiu and most wing chun celebrities.

By selective induction of second and third hand stories one can create all sorts of histories to confirm one's position. or predetermined conclusions. We have enough trouble dtermining even contemporaneously who spent quality time learning from whom..

In the end- the depth of the principles-and effective applications remain.

[KPM]

Victor wrote:
It seems as though everytime time a thoughtful discussion arises about TWC...someone has to try and use Germany, 1986, as a
measuring rod for TWC....

---Oh now that's rich Victor! Thoughtful discussion? The people asking you questions about the "old rhetoric" have been very thoughtful. You, however, and just spouted the same old "party line." I would rephrase your comment above in this way:
It seems as though every time a thoughtful discussion arises about TWC...someone has to spout the old tired story about Leung Bik and "modified" WCK with total disregard for any evidence to the contrary.

Keith

[t_niehoff]

RR wrote:

Perhaps someone on the HK side could one day check St. Stephans enrollement records and put that part, at least, to rest. RR

As I understand it, St. Stephans school is a private, British-run, english-speaking school (hence the name). By all accounts, Yip Man didn't speak english. TN

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

Yuanfen wrote:

By selective induction of second and third hand stories one can create all sorts of histories to confirm one's position. or predetermined conclusions. JC

This assumes we all begin with "predetermined conclusions" (though I agree that many do). I think we can - or at least should - be able to examine dispassionately all the evidence we have at our disposal and, should the evidence warrant it, come up with what was tentatively "more likely". Obviously, if more evidence comes to light, then we will need to reevalutate any conclusion. And I can see situations where the evidence is ambiguous and folks could legitimately, and in good faith, disagree. TN

We have enough trouble dtermining even contemporaneously who spent quality time learning from whom...In the end- the depth of the principles-and effective applications remain. JC

Skill isn't *measured* by quantity of time spent learning, but is measured by our ability to use that skill; different people have diffing levels of talent, different learning curves, etc. (you might "get it" in 3 years, and I may not "get it" in 20). This is true in any skilled activity. That's why we need to be concerned with what one can do, not "how long" they've been at it. TN

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

Keith,

In line with my response to Joy, IMO if we recognize that WCK is a learned skill then claims of "system superiority" become a joke. However, if folks want to make claims of a "superior system" which can somehow make them "superior fighters" then that claim is very easy to prove -- simply go fight a Rickson or a Tank Abbott or any number of skilled fighters and show us. Put up or shut up. It's that easy. If they won't prove it (which has so far been the case), then it confirms that they are blowing hot air -- it's an empty claim. They, like us, know what would happen if they faced a skilled, resisiting opponent. Of course, there will always be the gullible that buy into these types of unproven claims. And there will always be those that want to believe -- it gives them confort. TN

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

So shoot me, I said Leung Sheung in terms of 50/50 and as regards teaching Yip Man's sons.

I mentioned Leung Sheung because I know that William Cheung once mentioned him as someone who had some of the advanced footwork - I assumed he meant the 50/50 as well as other things - if I'm wrong about that...please kill me now and end my misery.

If it wasn't Leung Sheung who had a hand in teaching the two sons...again, please get the gun, especially since it really makes a difference who it was...the point in the discussion we were having being that they did not learn from their father.

BUT SPEAKING OF YIP MAN'S SONS...In a book entitled:

"Wing Chun Martial Arts" written by Yip Chun (with Danny Connor)
publshed in 1992, by Samuel Weiser, Inc. There is an interview with Yip Chun at the end of the book that goes like this (Page 100):

"Can you tell us about Grandmaster Yip Man and his training?"

"Grandmaster Yip Man started kung fu training in Fatshan province
at the age of seven and continued until he was thirteen. His master, Chan Wah Soon,passed away when Yip Man was thirteen
and just before he died he told one of his seniors, Ng Chung So,
to be responsible for taking care of Yip Man in order to make him a great master. Yip Man followed Ng Chung So for two years to further his studies in Wing Chun. At the age of fifteen Yip Man and a fellow classmate, Un Ki Sen, went to Hong Kong to study at St Stephens College, and there by coincidence Yip Man met Leung Bik, the son of Leung Jan. Yip Man studied Wing Chun under Master Leung Bik for three years. This is roughly the history of his training, and according to Grandmaster Yip Man what he really learned about Wing Chun was obtained during his time in Hong Kong. There are two reasons for this:

1) Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems to be untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea.

2) His first master, Chan Wah Soon, was not quite an educated person, and it is better for one to be well educated in order to study the arts and get more understanding from them. As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Soon did not know much about it, so frankly Grandmaster Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he studied Wing chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun.

So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult...."

The revisionist history put out in the book entlitled:
"Complete Wing Chun"..(the Definitive Guide to Wing Chun's History and Traditions) is an...OUTRAGE...and clearly an attempt to try and discredit William Cheung's story by fabrication...

as I said earlier, it's all about DENIAL and JEALOUSY.

Perhaps I have allowed myself to be repulsed by all of this manipulation of facts too much; and in my haste to set the truth about my sifu back where it belongs - I have over emphasized certain points about people like Boztepe, Leung Ting, etc.

I'm not retracting what I've said about but I have to give credit where credit is due: at least some of the people on this website
connected with these two men seem to be much more interested in training and staying up on what's happening in the overall martial arts world...as opposed to what seems like an overwhelming majority of those who post frequently...

who give the unmistakable impression that refuting TWC, or HFY,
or MMA, or whatever...is all that really matters.

So in fairness to those who we in TWC refer to as modified Yip Man lineage...WHO HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT WILLIAM CHEUNG
let me spend a little more time saying what heretofore I have only said once or twice:

I have great respect for many people in the modified world as fighters...Chan Wah Soon...Wong Shun Leung ...Victor Kan...
Duncan Leung...the young Bruce Lee...to name but a few...

Let me make some boxing analogies: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier...Within the rules and regulations of the ring (which is not necessarily what would have happened in the street) - but in terms of the ring...
Clearly Ali's style was better than Frazier's style (or system)...

But who could take Smokin' Joe lightly...he was one helluva fighter

The same with Roberto Duran vs. Sugar Ray Leonard: in the street, I'd put my money on Duran - but in the ring Leonard's style was clearly superior...

But ,nonetheless, Roberto Duran was an incredible fighter. I once went to Madison Square Garden with my father when Duran was still the 135 lb. lightweight champ and saw him knock out a very tough Mexican fighter in the eighth round with ONE body punch!

Yes I believe that TWC is better...but I have to give credit where credit is due...and I will make an effort to handle the NONSENSE
around here a little differently in the future.

[Phil Redmond]

My brother Victor wrote:
>>"And on another note... is that the same Robert Chu...Phil...who at that Feb. 1984 seminar asked William Cheung to do chi sao with him... and then tried to give William Cheung "a hard time" and immediately got... POUNDED...as a result of which he (Robert Chu) began doing the slowest, most cautious rolling hands (luk sao) I have ever seen in my life...and then...most gratefully and humbly...thanked "Grandmaster Cheung" for accomodating his request to do chi sao..?<<

A WCK "sifu" once told me when I mentioned honor that I had seen too many kung fu movies. He knows who he is and some of you know him. I guess my USMC training taught me that. I will NEVER lose it. Anyway to keep things straight. Robert Chu wasn't "pounded" by Sifu Cheung. He was, let's say...displaced. Sifu Cheung would never try to hurt someone at a seminar. He would put himself in jeopardy first. I have seen this happen on many occaisons in NYC seminars. Native NY'ers know the mentality of the martial artists there. I personally witnessed people trying to sneak a technique on Sifu Cheung. Victor, do you remember the seminar at the Milford Plaza Hotel where a Karate?TaeKwonDo? guy tried to sneak an extra kick at Sifu during a drill against a "single" kick". The guy never came back after the break.
I don't want it to look like Sifu "pounded" someone at one of his seminars. After the attempt by Robert Chu everything was cordial between the two. I have this on tape also.
Phil

[reneritchie]

Victor,

LOL! The book might be an outrage, but its far less outrageous than what came before. I admire your loyalty to your story, however.

For me, its as simple as an unknown. Different students of Yip Man recount different "facts", and some will privately say very different things than they say publically (where "face" can be an issue, and where some consider it disrespectful to show history that disagrees with past story). It's thus a matter of personal belief. I think the only way to be "wrong" is to insist you know conclusively one way or another. I understand the testa dura aspect, its a hard thing to break (not literally ;) ) but deep down, I truly believe any sane person could find over a dozen holes in either version.

And in the end, they're just stories. If the quality is there, and you enjoy doing it, and it does what you want it to do, isn't that all that matters? IME, we only cling to stories when we doubt the utility. I can tell by your posts, you don't doubt the utiltiy of TWC at all, story true or no.

What I do think is important, however, is not to let the story fracture the art. Stories about "one true traditional authentic original real secret system" invariably alienate others. You think your art is the best, so likely do almost everyone else about their versions. It's understood. But when its trotted out on message boards, jammed down peoples throats in articles, stamped on every flyer.

WCK isn't a flashy art. Why should its stories be pushed so hard? Train, enjoy, share, live, grow. If what you do is so good, it will be apparent. You won't need to say it. (LOL! You'll probably do everything to avoid saying it, just to respect the fire codes!)

[reneritchie]

Phil,

I've met many NYC MAists. They're a unique sort, to be sure. Even the little ones seem to walk around like they're 500' tall!

Usually age, marriage, children, careers, mellow them. Not always though. 8)

[Phil Redmond]

I was one of them. But like you said, I grew up. I trained with some people who were/are legends in the 'hood. Try mentioning Moses X Powell to the famous guys like Seagel and watch the look on their faces. Once there was an article in Black Belt about Darnell Garcia losing to the "unknown" Fred Miller. What they didn't know was that Fred Miller had broken people's bones by kicking them in tournaments. There was a East Coast vs. West Coast controversy in BB after that incident. I don't know about now, but back in the day if you had a school in NYC you might get people coming to challenge you in front of your students. It was a very common thing to happen. I did it myself. Especially with Chinese Sifus who thought that only they could do gung fu. My initimidation was more effective when I could speak their language. When brothers realized that the Chinese couldn't perform like they did in the movies in a real fight the illiusion was shattered. My vibe was and still is, bring it.
Phil

[KPM]

Victor wrote:
So shoot me, I said Leung Sheung in terms of 50/50 and as regards teaching Yip Man's sons.
I mentioned Leung Sheung because I know that William Cheung once mentioned him as someone who had some of the advanced footwork - I assumed he meant the 50/50 as well as other things - if I'm wrong about that...please kill me now and end my misery.
If it wasn't Leung Sheung who had a hand in teaching the two sons...again, please get the gun, especially since it really makes a difference who it was...the point in the discussion we were having being that they did not learn from their father.

---I think the point in bringing up your errors was to show that you are not an expert in all of YMWCK. You state rather adamantly that TWC is better than EVERYTHING else, and lump anything that is not TWC into the category of "modified" WCK, yet it is clear that you have no clue about what many YMWCK people do.....including the Leung Sheung lineage and the Augustine Fong lineage. You very readily define what "modified" WCK is, but don't even know if the definition fits the majority of YMWCK lineages out there. Its clear from you comment above that you are basing everything on one factor.....what William Cheung told you. Open your eyes and look around Victor.

BUT SPEAKING OF YIP MAN'S SONS...In a book entitled:

"Wing Chun Martial Arts" written by Yip Chun (with Danny Connor)
publshed in 1992, by Samuel Weiser, Inc. There is an interview with Yip Chun at the end of the book that goes like this (Page 100):

---I've read this book. You should also be aware that Yip Ching's recent book about his father states something similar to what you have quoted. But wait a minute.....didn't you yourself point out that Yip Ching and Yip Chun came to Hong Kong after their father had already been there for quite some time? After any stories and legends would have been well-established? Wouldn't they have bought into these stories and be reluctant to contradict them just like others? It should also be pointed out that both Yip Chun and Yip Ching repeat this story of Yip Man learning advanced theory from Leung Bik with the obvious implication that Yip Man has in turn taught it to them. Their repeating the Leung Bik story in no way supports the existence of TWC prior to William Cheung.


Perhaps I have allowed myself to be repulsed by all of this manipulation of facts too much; and in my haste to set the truth about my sifu back where it belongs - I have over emphasized certain points about people like Boztepe, Leung Ting, etc.

---Facts? Truth? All you have given us is a story from 20 years ago that has never had anything to back it up. You are basing everything on the word of one man. Where are the facts? Where is the evidence? Where is anyone that can corroborate the existence of TWC prior to William Cheung?


So in fairness to those who we in TWC refer to as modified Yip Man lineage...WHO HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT WILLIAM CHEUNG
let me spend a little more time saying what heretofore I have only said once or twice:

---You may have an open mind about William Cheung, but obviously about little else. :-) I had an open mind about William Cheung as well those many years ago until those first magazine articles started to appear. The entire thesis of those articles was slamming "modified" WCK in order to show how superior TWC is. The problem then was that what those articles were showing and defining as "modified" WCK looked and sounded nothing like the WCK that I was learning. TWC soon lost all credibility in my mind simply because to my experience what those articles were defining as "modified" WCK was completely wrong. As the years passed that old rhetoric was toned down. I even studied TWC for a short while and enjoyed it and acknowledge it as effective. In interacting with TWC people like Phil Redmond I was even coming to believe that maybe the old rhetoric had finally been dropped. But then you pop up and start spouting it again with total disregard for the problems the story has. So once again, TWC has lost some credibility with me (no offense Phil).

Yes I believe that TWC is better...but I have to give credit where credit is due...and I will make an effort to handle the NONSENSE
around here a little differently in the future.

---Well good! How about listening and considering what other people have to say some time?

Keith

[t_niehoff]

Victor, Phil,

Thanks for the stories about Robert Chu. I sincerely hope that your skill and understanding in WCK has grown in the 20+ years since you all happened to attend a TWC seminar and that folks that knew you then and met you again today would be impressed with your progress. Perhaps looking at it that way might give you some perspective -- that none of us are the same as we were 20 years ago, including Robert Chu. We've all grown. If it matters to you what his skill is today (there must be some reason you keep bringing him up), pay him a visit and see for yourself. The old "when he was a kid he was a punk" routine is tiresome and doesn't prove anything. TN

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

RR wrote:

LOL! The book might be an outrage, but its far less outrageous than what came before. I admire your loyalty to your story, however. RR

I don't see why you would admire fanatical belief in a marketing ploy. As Thomas Edison said, "Thinking is the hardest work there is, which is probably why so few engage in it." TN

And in the end, they're just stories. If the quality is there, and you enjoy doing it, and it does what you want it to do, isn't that all that matters? IME, we only cling to stories when we doubt the utility. I can tell by your posts, you don't doubt the utiltiy of TWC at all, story true or no.

Well, this marketing hype isn't convincing us, so I can only think it is being repeated to convince the marketers. As I said before, claims of superiority are nothing special; any unproven claim carries no weight. But there is an easy way to prove claims of "system superiority" -- and the fact that no one is out proving it, except by repeating the same claims over and over, is revealing in itself. TN

What I do think is important, however, is not to let the story fracture the art. Stories about "one true traditional authentic original real secret system" invariably alienate others. You think your art is the best, so likely do almost everyone else about their versions. It's understood. But when its trotted out on message boards, jammed down peoples throats in articles, stamped on every flyer.

It's funny -- but I've found that folks that think their "art is the best" are the same folks that don't get out and fight with skilled, resisting opponents. If they did, they'd see fairly quickly that their "belief" is unjustified. And I've found that folks that do get out and fight skilled, resisting opponents don't make those sorts of claims as they know - from firsthand experience - that it's not about superiority of the art, but of the person using the art (whatever art). TN

WCK isn't a flashy art. Why should its stories be pushed so hard? Train, enjoy, share, live, grow. If what you do is so good, it will be apparent. You won't need to say it. (LOL! You'll probably do everything to avoid saying it, just to respect the fire codes!)

Yes, as they say, giants don't need to tell you how tall they are. TN

Terence

[marcelino31]

Yes, as they say, giants don't need to tell you how tall they are. TN

Well put, Terrence!

I might add, LOL, does a lion need to roar to prove that it's king of the beasts?

Apparently, a donkey in Aesop's fable did,
(with a fake lion skin on) and made a fool
out of himself.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Victor

I mentioned Leung Sheung because I know that William Cheung once mentioned him as someone who had some of the advanced footwork - I assumed he meant the 50/50 as well as other things - if I'm wrong about that...please kill me now and end my misery.

I myself brought this up for a couple reasons. One is becuase it is not true and just setting the record straight, from atleast from what I have heard. Second, your using all these statements to backup your arguments, and they are wrong. You are spouting what you have been told and not looking at it in depth or critically. I am not saying it is wrong, but maybe you don't understand it. William told you Leung Sheung had advanced footwork, but you take it to mean he is 50/50. This shows that you jumped to conclusions and didn't really think about it. Could there be other things you misunderstood? I have been on the net for several years and the one thing I can say about the Leung Sheung lineage is that they are 100/0, this is very common knowledge and HUGE debates have centered around this. Kinda hard to miss.



If it wasn't Leung Sheung who had a hand in teaching the two sons...again, please get the gun, especially since it really makes a difference who it was...the point in the discussion we were having being that they did not learn from their father.

Not sure where you got this bit of info, but if this is the quality of information you have, then it does make a difference about other things you say. It is OK to be incorrect, but you want us to beleive every word you say, however there are some serious faults in some of it.

AS for your other topics, I think we should check St Stephens records if possible. I went to the web site, but of course they don't have that info online. A good point brought up is that it is an English speaking school. If that is the case, then it makes no sense that Yip Man attended.

Why are you quoting Yip Man's sons? Were they around? Think about your dad or mom or whoever. Think back to when they were 16 or 17. Do you know much about them? Chances are no. Why take their word for this but deny others like Wang Kiu who was there when he talked about making up the story? how about others in Futsan that say Leung Bik did not know Wing Chun. Or are they less knowledgeable about things than the Yip bros?

Not sure what boxing has to do with any of this.You may think TWC is supperior. But others do not. I am still not sure what it has that is supperior. "modified" wing chun seems to be the higher art to me. And I am still wondering why "Traditional" wing chun has not been propogated in Futsan from the other lines.

Still questioning the logic here
Tom
________
Ipad guides (http://ipadguides.info)

[yuanfen]

Tom P sez:

AS for your other topics, I think we should check St Stephens records if possible. I went to the web site, but of course they don't have that info online. A good point brought up is that it is an English speaking school. If that is the case, then it makes no sense that Yip Man attended.

((Tom- in all these "debates" --- people jump to conclusions
with interpretinga fact here and there. In english colonial days
there were missionary schools run by different orders...including
St Stephens and St xaviers( Jesuits). The idea apart from collecting tuition was to influence young minds. Non English speaking people were admitted(like myself at St xavier's in Calcutta with the idea of teaching them English. Brief attendance
did not result in Wordsworth or Coleridge))

Why are you quoting Yip Man's sons? Were they around?
((As kids listening to Dad's sories without regularly learning wing chun ---YES))

Think about your dad or mom or whoever. Think back to when they were 16 or 17.

((Think about your dad when you were much younger as he talked about who he met etc when he was young))

Do you know much about them? Chances are no.
((The point being? They have written about their early memories . Separate issue from what they learned in Hong kong. Cheung heard that story from IM--- though he made his own self serving history out of it.))
Why take their word for this but deny others like Wang Kiu who was there when he talked about making up the story?

(Who is the he? Wang Kiu has his self serving stories- about his own education etc))

how about others in Futsan that say Leung Bik did not know Wing Chun.

(( You can get any story you want in many places. Gossip is a veryhuman preoccupation))))

Or are they less knowledgeable about things than the Yip bros?

((Could be- depends. My point/- martial arts history is often baloney even on this list. Best to learn some decent wing chun.
Have you (general you) done your sil lim tao today. It was great doing it as the early sun rose in the valley- over the hills and a lake ina park))

[yuanfen]

Tom P sez:

AS for your other topics, I think we should check St Stephens records if possible. I went to the web site, but of course they don't have that info online. A good point brought up is that it is an English speaking school. If that is the case, then it makes no sense that Yip Man attended.

((Tom- in all these "debates" --- people jump to conclusions
with interpretinga fact here and there. In english colonial days
there were missionary schools run by different orders...including
St Stephens and St xaviers( Jesuits). The idea apart from collecting tuition was to influence young minds. Non English speaking people were admitted(like myself at St xavier's in Calcutta with the idea of teaching them English. Brief attendance
did not result in Wordsworth or Coleridge))

Why are you quoting Yip Man's sons? Were they around?
((As kids listening to Dad's sories without regularly learning wing chun ---YES))

Think about your dad or mom or whoever. Think back to when they were 16 or 17.

((Think about your dad when you were much younger as he talked about who he met etc when he was young))

Do you know much about them? Chances are no.
((The point being? They have written about their early memories . Separate issue from what they learned in Hong kong. Cheung heard that story from IM--- though he made his own self serving history out of it.))
Why take their word for this but deny others like Wang Kiu who was there when he talked about making up the story?

(Who is the he? Wang Kiu has his self serving stories- about his own education etc))

how about others in Futsan that say Leung Bik did not know Wing Chun.

(( You can get any story you want in many places. Gossip is a veryhuman preoccupation))))

Or are they less knowledgeable about things than the Yip bros?

((Could be- depends. My point/- martial arts history is often baloney even on this list. Best to learn some decent wing chun))

[sel]

do all the different lineages of wing chun share the same principles, and theory? i'm thinking that if the principles are constant, then what differentiates the various lineages is the way (theory) you are taught to apply them in practice.

then i wonder if the theory of applying the principles is different, is the outcome the same? that is, do they all end up applying them with the same outcome in the end?

the political argument is redundant.

[Ultimatewingchun]

You know, Rene, ther's a real problem with people who make a career out of purposely taking a little from this one, a little from that one - like, for example, taking William Cheung's footwork but Hawkins Cheung's body bridges and pressures...

that's OK if the motivation is SOLELY because one truly believes that it makes the most sense in terms of fighting principles, strategies, etc...

BUT...when the motivation is simply NOT to have to acknowledge that so and so has more wing chun answers and abilities than anyone you've ever seen - when it's simply because one's ego is
SO BIG that such recognition and acknowledgement is rejected
because it would mean logically having to call someone "Sifu" who
happens to be so good that you know you'll never surpass them...

THEN...that's just being a phoney. It's false pride - plain and simple. And people who act this way are not trustworthy...

And when I see that this same person had a major hand in writing a "COMPLETE"..."DEFINITIVE"..."GUIDE TO WING CHUN'S HISTORY AND TRADITION"...and after I saw with my own two eyes
how that person tried (but failed) to take advantage of my Sifu...
and then, later tried (but failed) to get over on me and my colleagues in terms of trying to take over something that wasn't his to take over, (and believe me, one of them is being very
"gracious" with his "displaced" remark)...

AND... then I read in his (and your) book years later on page 7 that ..."one account holds that Yip Man came to learn Wing Chun again while in Hong Kong attending school...and suitably impressed, Yip followed Leung Bik for the next few years polishing his Wing Chun before making his way back to Foshan.."

AND then read on page 119..."but recently, some of Yip Man's students and descendents have come forward to say that this was merely a story (Yip Man having trained in Hong Kong with Leung Bik)...created by Lee Man of the Restaurant Workers Union
to help increase interest in the style in Hong Kong..."

A LOAD OF CRAP if for no other reason than the fact that nobody at that time had even heard of Leung Bik at the ALREADY
OVERCROWDED Yip Man school in Hong Kong back in the 1960's.
Moy Yat used to tell us time and again about having to sometimes wait for an hour just to get a spot on the workout floor
to do chi sao with his partners. Yip Man didn't need any publicity
based upon having a connection with someone hardly anyone even knew about...

AGAIN, THIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED HISTORICAL REVISIONISM
is a load of crap.

So on page 7 the truth is told and near the very end of the book
the BIG LIE surfaces. Any Public Relations 101 class will teach you that when making a speech or a presentation or a porformance
the audience is always apt to remember what they saw,or in this case - what they read...LAST. Not what came at the beginning.

Very slick manipulation and some very well placed, well chosen sentences...I must say. And when I reflect upon all of this I can't help but realize that what at first I thought was an excellent book
is really HIGHLY SUSPECT, in terms of politics and historical fabrication.

I don't know exactly what your role is in all of this but I certainly smell a rat coming from the direction of some one else you and I both know...and furthermore...

You wrote in an earlier post on this thread that "even in Cheung's sifu story, Leung Bik, real system and all, still gets beaten and driven out, proving the real system (TWC) can't beat larger opponents."

It proves no such thing. The very fact that William Cheung admits this part of the story (for it would have been more self-promotional for him to say that Leung Bik won - would it not?)...
the very fact that he admits this lends William Cheung even more credibility for being honest about it.

There's no guarantee that a man standing 5' tall with a better system is going to beat another man standing 6' tall with a lesser system. You should know that, Rene...

If you were a fighter, that is. Are you?

Or could it be that you spend a majority of your time with just one foot in the REAL world of martial arts and the other foot in petty, manipulative and fabricated politics, under the guise of
"scholarly historical research?"

Telling half truths always means that the other half is a lie!

Don't forget that.

[t_niehoff]

sel wrote:

do all the different lineages of wing chun share the same principles, and theory?

Wouldn't they need to? If we didn't share the same core or essence, we would all be doing different arts. TN

i'm thinking that if the principles are constant, then what differentiates the various lineages is the way (theory) you are taught to apply them in practice.

Imagine if Ali and Frazier opened boxing gyms and that every boxer that trained under Mohammed Ali tried to fight like he did or that every boxer that fought under Joe Frazier tried to box like he did (and both groups claimed that their lineage was superior!) -- both "lineages" of boxing would produce nothing more than a load of poor boxers (actually, Frazier did exactly that to his son, and ruined a good stick-and-move fighter). To be a good fighter, regardless of the art, is to take the various components of that art and put them together for ourselves in a way that best suits ourselves. Good boxers should look distinctive as they are individuals and the boxing fundamentals build on that individual; same with good WCK fighters. Clones - regardless of lineage - never reach anywhere near their full potential. Good teachers, on the other hand, must be acquainted with more than just their personal approach (as that may not suit all their students). TN

then i wonder if the theory of applying the principles is different, is the outcome the same? that is, do they all end up applying them with the same outcome in the end?

It is so common to leave the individual out of the equation -- as if the "system" somehow fought by itself! We must recognize the importance of the individual in the equation; it is the individual and what he or she brings to the art -- their innate talents, drive, experience, attitude, etc. -- that takes the art and makes it work for them. TN

the political argument is redundant.

Politics? I've never thought that term was particularly accurate. BS might be more accurate. ;) TN

Terence

[sel]

perhaps for the sake of my questions i should have started with:
take 10 clones....identical in every way......send them out to train in wing chun , each in a different lineage .....

i do agree with all that you said. maybe one day when human cloning is the norm, we can create these 10 clones and settle the old bs once and for all.

[yuanfen]

sel asks:

do all the different lineages of wing chun share the same principles, and theory?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm-

most wouldnt know a principle if one walked by....

in wc there are 1. the issue of knowing the principles 2.having a competent teacher showing you things and directing your early
progress 3. your own capacity for learning and using wing chun.

Variances in wing chun are in part due to variances in the presence of the above 3 items above imo.

[reneritchie]

Victor,

As has been mentioned numerous times before, the book was originally titled Historical Traditions of Wing Chun Kuen, and Tuttle, to make it part of their set of "Complete" books (Taiji, Aikido, etc.) renamed it.

As to Robert, he believes there's a set of overall optimul principles that override lineage and accelerate application and does his WCK in that manner. It is a cohesive whole of a system, but built on what he studied and what came before. Part of what he studied included Lee Moy-Shan, William Cheung, Koo Sang, Hawkins Cheung, and other variations of Yip Man lineages, and Yuen Kay-San and Gulao. In the acknowlegements of the book, he thanks them all, but he doesn't use their name to promote himself, or blame them if his art isn't to anyone else's liking. I'm sorry if you have issues with him, I can't help you with that. He's a friend, and I respect his method for WCK, that's it.

As to revisionist history, I would again state this happened far in advance of Complete Wing Chun, and CWC is simply an introductory effort to set things straight. You may not like that either, you might prefer some of the earlier mistatements, myths, marketing stories, fishing tales, etc., and I can't help you with that either. Repeating it over and over and YELLING about it won't change anyone's mind. If you're serious about changing minds, you'll need to *prove it*, and the proof you offer will need to be logical, reasonable, and factual.

As to Leung Bik, while you may choose to believe William Cheung, others may choose to believe Wang Kiu. We didn't appoint ourselves experts (even if the trolls like to grant us that title) and decide to be judge and jury as to which of Yip Man's students are right or wrong. We presented all of it, and let the readers decide for themselves. Did that scare some people? Yes. Did it p!ss some off? Sure. But only those without structure.

Victor, most sifu, especially the old timers, know this stuff. They've heard it all decades ago. They know the history and they know the stories. They know how to tell one from the other and they don't sweat them. It's only the younger people, the ones who've invested themselves in the stories, that sweat them so much.

What role did I have? I wrote most of it. Personally, I doesn't matter to me whether Yip Man learned from Leung Bik or not. It makes *no* difference. In both cases, his (first) sifu was Chan Wah-Shun, and his sigung was Leung Jan. It changes nothing, in my eyes. Why others worry so much? I don't know. Probably something to do with their rice bowls.

As to the rest, I'm not going to get drawn into petty personal insults. To me, that's lost structure. I realize a lot of what you've seen here challenges some of your long held beliefs, and not everyone can handle that rationally or reasonably.

Please understand, I've had this discussion over a dozen times over a dozen years. I've been talking to TWC people since the very early 1990s. It's nothing personal.

I like it though. I like all the stories. I just know their place. And fighters don't need to worry so much about stories, do they?

BTW- You never answered me. Don't you find it strange the TWC story is almost identical to the Yang Taiji story? And what foundation in Chan Wah-Shun lineages do you have to support your previous statements about their methodology?

[yuanfen]

I dont think continuously repeating convenient hearsay is history.

The "history" of wing chun has not been written and the methodological difficulties alone let alone reliable infprmation are formidable.

On Leung Bik you have several lines of propositions at least three- take whatever you want--

1. Ip man many times said that he learned some things from Leung Bik. Ergo its part of Ip man's synthesis of what he learned from his first sifu, sihings, Leung Bik and his own experience.
( a not uncommon non TWC version)

2. Rene quoting( selective induction) Wang Kiu quoting Lee man that the leung Bik thesis helped with marketing.

3.That Ip man had modified and traditional wing chun- the latter
learned from Leung Bik.(the TWC story)


You take your pick. I pick #1 but dont worry too much about
pseudo historical arguments. Waste of time and prevents progress in understanding wing chun. We could extend gossip into the worlds of
practically anyone YKS, Sum Nun, Pan Nam, and contemporay folks and even on people who have participated on various lists.. What constructive purpose would it serve?

Let it be, IMO.

[FIRE HAWK]

Maybe William Cheung learned the Chan Wha Shun version of Wing Chun from Yip Man and the other students of Yip Man learned the Leung Bik version of Wing Chun from Yip Man perhaps William Cheung has the Chan Wha Shun version of Wing Chun from Yip Man and the other students of Yip Man learned the Leung Bik version from Yip Man , maybe things are reversed ? Chan Wha Shuns son Chan Yiu Min calls his Weng Chun and not Wing Chun I wonder if there is any relation of Chan Yiu Mins Weng Chun and Chi Sim Weng Chun and Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun and William Cheungs Traditional Wing Chun ?

[Grendel]

Originally posted by sel
i do agree with all that you said. maybe one day when human cloning is the norm, we can create these 10 clones and settle the old bs once and for all.

Then we'll all have bigger problems than these petty lineage issues. :(

[John Weiland]

Hi Victor,


Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
So shoot me, I said Leung Sheung in terms of 50/50 and as regards teaching Yip Man's sons.

I mentioned Leung Sheung because I know that William Cheung once mentioned him as someone who had some of the advanced footwork - I assumed he meant the 50/50 as well as other things - if I'm wrong about that...please kill me now and end my misery.

Yes, once again you are wrong in your assertions of knowledge of Wing Chun footwork in the Leung Sheung lineage. You have made obviously ignorant assertions about the 0/100 horse and its applications.

Your knowledge of the subject of traditional Wing Chun, as opposed to Traditional (TM) Wing Chun, is obviously very limited. Someone sagely asked a valid question about your claims of knowledge of non-Traditional (TM) Wing Chun you said derived from/through your study with Moy Yat. To ask again in another way, does that give you credibility in the eyes of students of earlier Yip Man students? I don't think so.


If it wasn't Leung Sheung who had a hand in teaching the two sons...again, please get the gun, especially since it really makes a difference who it was...the point in the discussion we were having being that they did not learn from their father.

It makes a difference because you are proliferating untruths and prevarications. Do you just make this stuff up?


The revisionist history put out in the book entlitled:
"Complete Wing Chun"..(the Definitive Guide to Wing Chun's History and Traditions) is an...OUTRAGE...and clearly an attempt to try and discredit William Cheung's story by fabrication...

Rene Ritchie, et al wrote that book a long time ago now, and it was not intended to cover every lineage, but rather to include coverage of some of the less well known ones, or as I say to nettle Rene, the obscure ones. :D Surely, even if his facts were wrong, that compares favorably with your record on the forum.


as I said earlier, it's all about DENIAL and JEALOUSY.

Clearly. But whose. :mad:


Perhaps I have allowed myself to be repulsed by all of this manipulation of facts too much; and in my haste to set the truth about my sifu back where it belongs - I have over emphasized certain points about people like Boztepe, Leung Ting, etc.

You know, sometimes the facts speak for themselves. William Cheung is rightfully famous for teaching Bruce Lee, studying under Yip Man, and doing yeoman's work to popularize Wing Chun. I don't think you need to rabidly defend a man with such a record. However, when he found that he could not get the support of Leung Ting to be declared the grandmaster of Wing Chun, which is perhaps where the bad blood between them began, then he came out with his TWC story.


who give the unmistakable impression that refuting TWC, or HFY,
or MMA, or whatever...is all that really matters.

It's not about refuting the lineages. It's about refuting unsupported assertions about history. And, that's all, at least as far as most are concerned. I, for one, don't even have a rice bowl to break.


So in fairness to those who we in TWC refer to as modified Yip Man lineage...WHO HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT WILLIAM CHEUNG

That would be me among many.


I have great respect for many people in the modified world as fighters...Chan Wah Soon...Wong Shun Leung ...Victor Kan...
Duncan Leung...the young Bruce Lee...to name but a few...

Good for you. How many of these have you met? How many of them would support your premise on TWC origins?


Let me make some boxing analogies: Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier...Within the rules and regulations of the ring (which is not necessarily what would have happened in the street) - but in terms of the ring...
Clearly Ali's style was better than Frazier's style (or system)...

Clearly? You're probably too young to remember. Ali was lucky to live through the beatings Frazier gave him.


The same with Roberto Duran vs. Sugar Ray Leonard: in the street, I'd put my money on Duran - but in the ring Leonard's style was clearly superior...

I'd argue about the "clearly superior" appraisal. A past his prime, over his weight class, "manos de piedra" Duran put Leonard into the hospital in their first fight. On the street, Duran might have beat even Ali.


Yes I believe that TWC is better...but I have to give credit where credit is due...and I will make an effort to handle the NONSENSE
around here a little differently in the future.

You should work on spreading a little less of it.

Regards,

[Chango]

Rene,
Just by the nature of your car analogy it is clear that you are not qualified to make any determination on HFY from a technical perspective. Your analogy seemingly admits that you do not know the first thing about HFY from a technical perspective. So I hope others will consider this when reading your opinion on HFY.

I have attended a siminar with Sibakgung William Cheung. After which we spent alot of time eating and discussing WCK. Plus I have had the pleasure of being in the group of VTM members that got to spend a night on the town with him in Hong Kong. I have been told by a few TWC practitioners that Sibak-gung uses a "BOEC" format for siminars and the system it's self is far more in depth. I have been exposed to both the siminar format and the system approach of TWC. Both presented by Sibak-gung William Cheung himself.
During the last siminar Sibak-gung tested a few gentlemen for becoming a Sifu.

I'm currently a member of the HFY family. I have first hand information on HFY's principles and concepts etc....

Now after listing my qualifications (all first hand and from a qualified source if not the source) I can say that TWC and HFY are very different animals. Both systems have a understanding of flanking body position. However both systems approach this in a very different way. It only make since not to give up casualties buy trying to just go up the middle. Both systems step while moving instead of dragging thier feet or sliding. But both have very different and specific ways of stepping. Now taking that in consideration I will have to say that I agree niether system drags thier feet while moving. Again this makes since to anyone who has ever gotten in a fight in grass or in a gravel covered area. Out side of these things I cannot say that I see any simularities beyond any of other two WCK systems. sure they both have SNT, Chum kiu,and Biu Ji!

IF one understands the maximum effeciency concept of HFY. This definition alone will seperate HFY from anything else. There are endless less efficient things but only one most efficient! I know this goes against many people's beliefs but when you have face to face interaction and you test it and understand it yourself it becomes very clear. Some insist on performing the HFY in thier own way and insist that they are doing HFY. However it cannot be HFY unless it is the most efficient way. So if you add to it or take anything away you are operating on a less efficent level. I'm not saying HFY is better then anything. I'm just saying that the system is govened by the concept of Maximum efficency and there are test and challenges offered in the system to prove it! That is it!

Saat geng sau

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Chango
I'm not saying HFY is better then anything. I'm just saying that the system is govened by the concept of Maximum efficency and there are test and challenges offered in the system to prove it! That is it!

What are the nature of these tests and challenges?

[Train]

Hi John,

Since you live so cose to SF, why don't you pay a visit to the HFY school? From all the posts I've been reading, the HFY people seem quite nice. All the people I know that went there said it was a very good experience. There are no big heads or attitudes there. So why don't you go? Ask your questions first hand.

[KPM]

Hi Rene!

BTW- You never answered me. Don't you find it strange the TWC story is almost identical to the Yang Taiji story? And what foundation in Chan Wah-Shun lineages do you have to support your previous statements about their methodology?

---Excellent post! But Victor has managed to avoid answering almost every question asked of him here. He is not here for a "thoughtful discussion", but rather to rattle the old TWC party line. Has he once responded to a reasonable point that was in contradiction to the old TWC story? Victor shouts a lot, but says little that we haven't heard over and over before. How does he end up responding to the heat he feels in this thread? He attacks Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie, and "Complete Wing Chun." And for no apparent reason that I can see. How did Robert Chu get brought up within this thread to begin with?

Keith

[reneritchie]

Joy,

I think your post is excellent, though biased. IMHO, the stories of Leung Bik and the stories of no Leung Bik are far more balanced than you portray. There is no "clean" evidence Yip Man told anyone about Leung Bik, while there is direct evidence he never mentioned a Leung Bik to his earliest students, and many of the other early students as well. So, we're left only with heresay, the various written and oral accounts of Yip Man's students, some of which differ between public and private versions. Mix in the intra-branch politics, and IMHO it is impossible for anyone to honestly and ethically say one is more likely than the other, or to determine without bias the relative weights of various students versions (eg. there's no reason to disrespect Wang Kiu or William Cheung). Thus, again, all we're left with is personal opinion.

John,

Some people place an enormous amount of faith in their sifu, and in their memories of what their sifu said. If they remember their sifu saying Leung Sheung had 50/50 footwork, or that the "Chan Wah-Shun" lineages do things a certain way, to them it's almost gospel. Hopefully, interaction on boards such as this, seeing that what they once held as gospel was, in fact, wrong, it might encourage them to see for themselves more, and perhaps even to wonder what other "gospel" might be wrong.

Chango,

Perhaps, once again, by usage of Canadian English is confusing and unsettling to you? Let me try to simplify, once again, and then if you still don't understand, I'll decide its because you don't want to.

*** I'm not saying TWC and HFY are the same "animal", are "identical", etc. etc. all I'm saying is that they are closer to each other than either are to Yuen Kay-San, Koo Lo, Yip Man, etc.

Do you disagree with that statement? Do you think HFY is closer to Koo Lo than it is to TWC? Do you think TWC is closer to YKS than HFY?

If a casual ubiased observer watched a copy of the Friendship Seminar tape and saw the Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San, TWC, and HFY Siu Lien/Nim Tao's all performed one after the other, do you think they would see more of a similarity between TWC and HFY, than between HFY and YKS?

Please re-read this several times before responding.

Keith,

Discussion is just like WCK. We see it here all the time. If someone has structure (knows what they're talking about and can support their arguments) they are like SNT. They can just relax in their posture, smile, and enjoy the conversation. If they're structure is not great (don't really know what they're talking about but are just repeating what they heard from someone they trust, and cannot support their arguments but really believe in them), they are like CK, and will try to turn the conversation around or step away from the issues at hand. If they're structure sucks (parrotting BS they don't even understand, making inane unsupportable arguments) they are like BJ and will always be in recovery mode, twisting the discussion into personal insults, and overturning the tea table to prevent anyone else from continuing. Waste of time, waste of energy, but it lets them maintain their belief system, even if they know inside what a house of cards it is, and many prefer that than the hard work of reality.

[Scott Powers]

Chango

Nice to here from someone who has trained in each art form and can give first hand experence. To look at each system from a distance, sure people would compare at first apearance the systems simular step they take. But to compare without experence training in each system is foolish. It is disrespectful to both Grand Masters W.Cheung & G.Gee to say that we can look at their systems without experence training in them and know just what they are doing. Just because people on the Forum have experence in Wing Chun does'nt mean you can tell what every system is teaching. Only the Sifu of these Masters will be able to understand them completely. Speculating and or guessing does nothing but waste time. If you want to know what their system is about, them I suggest spending time with the Masters and get first hands on experence. If not then Chango should be the only person qualified to answer question on both system.

Scott Powers

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Scott Powers
Chango

Nice to here from someone who has trained in each art form and can give first hand experence. .....

Scott Powers


Scott,

I certainly agree with you 100%. And, I think the same reason apply to Benny and Company who published the article about HFY and Chisim are the oldest right?

Benny and VTM researh team have no idea at all on what my lineage doing.

So can Benny makes the "oldest" claim in magazine article?

[desertwingchun2]

My sibaak Chango has a very extensive martial arts history and is dedicated to his kung fu. I never knew he spent time with GM William Cheung. I don't know many others who have had first hand experience with the GMs of both TWC and HFYWC systems. It speaks volumes when one shares knowledge gained through personal experience.

-David

[tparkerkfo]

Train,

I have visited the HFY school and I can report that it was a great expereince. I don't know if John will do so, some people don't like that. The same could be asked for HFY people to come visit Ken. LOL. But, perhaps a better forum would be the bay area gettogethers that have been occuring every other month or so. We have had several so far and they are open to everyone that wants to attend. It would be a pleasure to have the HFY people visit. We had several in Oakland and planning one in San Jose. If you guys can't attend due to location, perhaps we can set one up in the SF area near BART.

These meetings are better than visiting the school for several reasons. There is a different atmosphere when a a "sifu" is around. Things can be more casual when "peers" are in attendance.

I hope to see some HFY this weekend.
Tom
________
Ffm Model (http://www.****tube.com/categories/550/model/videos/1)

[desertwingchun2]

Originally posted by Train
Hi John,

Since you live so cose to SF, why don't you pay a visit to the HFY school? From all the posts I've been reading, the HFY people seem quite nice. All the people I know that went there said it was a very good experience. There are no big heads or attitudes there. So why don't you go? Ask your questions first hand.

John, Train makes a very good point. From my experience GM Gee has answered any and all questions directed his way. From your participation in the WC gatherings, it is clear you are interested in learning from others. IMO nothing but good could come from such a meeting.

Train, absolutely 100% correct. The times I've been there everyone is very open and friendly.

-David

[Geezer]

I sent you a PM, let me know what you think????

Sheldon;)

[reneritchie]

John, Train makes a very good point. From my experience GM Gee has answered any and all questions directed his way.

Hi David,

That's been my experience as well. He's also very polite and very much the gentleman in person, and extends a very humble, well grounded view on all WCK. From the conversations (3 I think) I've had with him, he goes out of his way not to insult other branches, say they're "younger" or "less scientific" or anything else, or that his history was any better than any other branches. He seemed to respect all the established branches, and not make qualitative judgements about them.

IMHO (and something I've been saying for the last couple years), if people followed this example on the message board, there would be nothing but harmonious respect for the HFY family.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Hi David,

That's been my experience as well. He's also very polite and very much the gentleman in person, and extends a very humble, well grounded view on all WCK. From the conversations (3 I think) I've had with him, he goes out of his way not to insult other branches, say they're "younger" or "less scientific" or anything else, or that his history was any better than any other branches. He seemed to respect all the established branches, and not make qualitative judgements about them.

IMHO (and something I've been saying for the last couple years), if people followed this example on the message board, there would be nothing but harmonious respect for the HFY family.
Hi David,

I went to the trouble to organize this get-together on April 27, which would permit the HFY proponents and others to come in a safe, friendly atmosphere to demonstrate their mo duk, and demonstrate whatever contentions they make for Wing Chun. Please read the invitation. Garrett Gee is invited and will be made welcome if someone will pass on the invitation. We will show him honor as a teacher if he can make it, and give him a forum to discuss his historical contentions. Joy and KJ are traveling thousands of miles to be there (here).

As it stands, the burden of proof remains on the HFY forum members who have extended their claims. Think of the get-together as the opportunity to convince more others.

Who am I? If I "converted" and become HFY's proponent, would that convince anyone here? I doubt it.

I'll consider going to the Garrett Gee school after the get-together. But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more.

Regards,

[KPM]

Hi Scott!

---I think I will have to respectfully disagree.

Nice to here from someone who has trained in each art form and can give first hand experence.

---Not with this part! :-) It is good to hear from someone that has experience in both systems.

To look at each system from a distance, sure people would compare at first apearance the systems simular step they take. But to compare without experence training in each system is foolish. It is disrespectful to both Grand Masters W.Cheung & G.Gee to say that we can look at their systems without experence training in them and know just what they are doing.

---This I disagree with. Anyone with an eye trained in WCK can look at something as superficial and obvious as choreography of the forms and point out similarities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist nor a master of each respective system. And comparing something as straight-forward as choreography of the forms is neither disrespectful or foolish. It is no different that a WCK person looking at arts like Southern Mantis or Pak Mei and being able to point out that both fall into the category of being a "Southern Chinese In-fighting" method and for what reasons.

Just because people on the Forum have experence in Wing Chun does'nt mean you can tell what every system is teaching. Only the Sifu of these Masters will be able to understand them completely. Speculating and or guessing does nothing but waste time. If you want to know what their system is about, them I suggest spending time with the Masters and get first hands on experence. If not then Chango should be the only person qualified to answer question on both system.

---Again, one doesn't have to be a master of the method to recognize similarities in something as straight-forward as form choreography. Its that simple. It doesn't take a genius or a master.

Chango:
---You've have told us that you see very little similarities between TWC and HFY at the theory level. But you didn't comment on the forms. How similar do you find the choreography between the forms? Are the HFY and TWC forms more similar to each other than either are to YMWCK? Thanks!

Keith

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

You asked me what foundation of Chan Wah Shun do I have to support the statements I've made..?

The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

Whereas the almost 20 years spent with William Cheung qualifies me to say: Leung Bik-Yip Man-William Cheung (TWC).

The fact that you choose to believe that Leung Bik may not have taught anything to Yip Man, much less TWC...is your problem. As far as I'm concerned, Yip Man learned TWC from Leung Bik and passed it on to William Cheung.

It's up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

As for the Yang Taiji story...I'll look into it and if I find anything
significant in terms of this dicussion I'll get back to you.

But in the meantime: What about you responding to my reasoning concerning the fact that Yip Man needed no publicity by trying to connect himself to Leung Bik? Which is why I said that the Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story about there being no Yip Man-Leung Bik connection is false. Any feedback?

What about responding to Yip Chun's comments that not only did his father learn from Leung Bik but that ..."as for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it. So frankly, GM Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he was older, he studied with Leung Bik.Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun..." What about this, Rene?

And what about what I said concerning the 5' man vs. the 6' man.
Any comments on that...now?

Or the fact that in TWC we do square up and fight on the horizontal centerline after gaining the superior position. Anything to say?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terence:

You're right about the role of the "individual" when learning martial arts.....

I have some comments and questions about an individual named: Terence....

You're always implying either covertly or overtly that William Cheung is a total liar about TWC ; that TWC is just one big marketing ploy; that we're all a bunch of clones ; we really can't bring it in the street; we should take on the likes of Rickson Gracie, or Tank Abbott, or Robert Chu, etc.

But what about Terence? Could it be that Terence is looking to tangle with someone? Someone who is, say, a skilled, resisting opponent? Is it Terence who would like to come out of the schoolyard and into the world of "individuality"?

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Rene:

You asked me what foundation of Chan Wah Shun do I have to support the statements I've made..?

The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

Not really. Moy Yat admitted he never touched Yip Man's hands. Basing your knowledge of Yip Man Wing Chun on his teaching lacks credibility. Your obvious unfamiliarity with and misimpressions of other YM lines shows you haven't gotten around much and cannot speak with authority as you claim.

I am not taking sides in the argument, but instead suggest that you have to provide more facts to buttress your side.

Regards,

[desertwingchun2]

Hey John,

I didn't mention anything about convincing anyone of anything. I was responding to your post where you asked ...

"What are the nature of these tests and challenges?" John W.

Train suggested you go directly to the source. Sounds like a good recomendation to me. So I agreed with him and offered my personal experience regarding GM Gee answering questions.


I'll consider going to the Garrett Gee school after the get-together. - John W.

Great!

But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more. John W.

Well, hopefully after consideration you'll decide to go to the source rather than ask questions about HFYWC on the forum. Again, I don't think anything but good could come from such a meeting.

-David

[Train]

John said: (I'll consider going to the Garrett Gee school after the get-together. But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more.)

From this comment i already know you answer. I don't know about you John. Sounds a little close minded but that's ok. For me, i would go to any school just to pay some respects and talk to the people there. About the WC get together, from some of the post i've seen up to this point, i wouldnt go to it hehehe J/K :)

[yuanfen]

John W.

sez:But, from the HFY posts I've seen up to this point, I wouldn't cross the street to find out more.)

They have not been intriguing to me.

But if they enjoy it- their business.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Train, does that mean you will stop by the get together in San Jose?

Victor, I don't know if Leung Bik existed or not. Doesn't really matter. If Yip Man said he existed, that is good enough for me. Unfortunately we have some of his students that said Yip Man said he was taught by him. You have other students that say it was a made up story. You also have different accounts as to if he existed, or even knew Wing Chun. I am wondering how good his wing chun could be if Chan Wah Shun beat him up as the story goes. So much for a better system. LOL But if he existed, and if Yip Man did attend an english speaking school, how would he have learned so much from Leung Bik in such a short time? Obviously Yip Man had his studies and English to learn. But seriously, is it possible to learn the details in such a short time? If so, why can no one else get that good in such a short time. If Chan Wah Shun wasn't that good, then he probably wouldn't be any better than any other student of Yip Man. I would suggest, if I follow, that I could spend a few years learning Chan Wah Shun wing chun, then visit William Cheung in a year or two and become incredible, if I was dedicated.

Just trying to figure this all out. Just dosn't make sense.
Tom
________
The Cigar Boss (http://thecigarboss.com/)

[Train]

Hi Tom,

Unfortunatly, I am unable to make it there that day becuase i already made plans and at night i have training... Sounds cool though... maybe the next time you guys have it again i might be able to come. So, what school is most of the people coming from anyways? Is any of Criss Chan's people going?Is Hendrik going? Just Curious.

[Rolling_Hand]

<<I am wondering how good his wing chun could be if Chan Wah Shun beat him up as the story goes. So much for a better system. LOL But if he existed,>>Tom

**Tom, What are you saying? That person who touched hands with Chan Wah Shun was Leung Chun, not Leung Bik.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Train
I don't know about you John. Sounds a little close minded but that's ok. For me, i would go to any school just to pay some respects and talk to the people there. About the WC get together, from some of the post i've seen up to this point, i wouldnt go to it hehehe J/K

So your refusal to discuss the details of what you do and to attend a get-together to show it is Ok for you. But after some dubious online behavior, unsupported historical claims, and inside/out roundabout reasoning, you expect me to have an open mind? Ok, you've sold me. I'll come up. :D I think SF HFY people should try to attend this though. At least we can be friends if not in agreement. :D

Originally posted by Train
Hi Tom,

Unfortunatly, I am unable to make it there that day becuase i already made plans and at night i have training... Sounds cool though... maybe the next time you guys have it again i might be able to come. So, what school is most of the people coming from anyways? Is any of Criss Chan's people going?Is Hendrik going? Just Curious.
I don't mean to hijack the thread, but to answer the question about the April 27 get-together:

This particular event stemmed from PlanetWC, Hendrik, Roger Rollinghand, all apparently being Silicon Valley workers, and suggesting a lunchtime visit. I said I'd come if it happened. Then KJ said she'd come, then Joy (Yuanfen), and Aelward, and the idea kind of snowballed. Hendrik, unfortunately, was unable to make it, and Roger has not responded to the invitation.

Attendees include:

Tom Parker

John Kang (Aelward)'s Oakland/SF school www.wingchun-sf.com

At least one Chris Chan student that I know of.

Hoping to see David Williams/PlanetWC there www.wingchun.com

KJ-Kathy Jo www.rochesterwingchun.com

Joy Chaudhuri http://www.azwingchun.com

Sifu Michael Nederman plus three students from Sacramento

Union City Wing Chun http://128.32.250.15/~sjeung/wingchun/instructors.html

Stanford Wing Chun Students Association http://wingchun.stanford.edu/

Students of Ken Chung http://www.bawcsa.org/
Ken will attend the get-together after brunch

Students of Ben Der---That includes me

The total will be 30 or more folks meeting to exchange pleasantries over brunch followed by meeting to exchange Wing Chun at whateve levels attendees feel comfortable.

Although we will try to continue these get-togethers, someday folks will be talking about the good old days when this happened. :D

Regards,

[KPM]

---Hey Victor: I'm not Rene, but since I've asked you some of the same questions, here is my reply:

You asked me what foundation of Chan Wah Shun do I have to support the statements I've made..?
The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

---That's interesting because I have seen Benny Meng and his students do Moy Yat's WCK first hand and on video. They didn't look anything like what those old articles from years ago defined as "modified" WCK. I have seen Benny Meng very effectively deal with boxing hooks and Choy Li Fut style "rounding" blows with no problem....something you said Chan Wah Shun WCK couldn't do. I have seen Benny Meng use very effective footwork to avoid being "flanked". Something you said Chan Wah Shun WCK couldn't do. And Meng Sifu was doing his Moy Yat WCK at the time, not HFY. As I've said before, what those old articles illustrated and defined as "modified WCK" is something that ALL of the YMWCK people I have encountered would consider VERY poorly done WCK. Those articles were inacurrate then and the idea is still inaccurate today.

The fact that you choose to believe that Leung Bik may not have taught anything to Yip Man, much less TWC...is your problem. As far as I'm concerned, Yip Man learned TWC from Leung Bik and passed it on to William Cheung. It's up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

---It sounds like you have chosen to believe the Leung Bik story regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Which is fine. But realize that there are people that take a more open-minded approach and consider evidence towards what is more likely and what is less likely. When we are dealing with stories rather than verified history that is all that we can do. When evidence is pointing us towards the "less likely" in regards to the Leung Bik/TWC story, then it is up to you to prove it is true if you want us or anyone else to believe it. So I can turn your statement around on you just as easily. As far as I am concerned, based upon what I have seen and read, the Leung Bik/TWC story seems much "less likely" than the alternative versions. Its up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

But in the meantime: What about you responding to my reasoning concerning the fact that Yip Man needed no publicity by trying to connect himself to Leung Bik? Which is why I said that the Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story about there being no Yip Man-Leung Bik connection is false. Any feedback?

---I think this would depend on the timeline. How early on did the Leung Bik story originate? When Yip Man first got to Hong Kong and was down on his luck, Lee Man convinced him to begin teaching WCK openly. Lee Man could have come up with the story at that time in order to promote Yip Man's classes. Everyone starts somewhere. He didn't necessarily have a crowded kwoon right from the beginning.

What about responding to Yip Chun's comments that not only did his father learn from Leung Bik but that ..."as for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it. So frankly, GM Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he was older, he studied with Leung Bik.Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun..." What about this, Rene?

---Rene may not have said anything, but I responded to this already. Did you miss it? My comment was that Yip Chun as well as Yip Ching both tell this story. But they were both "late-comers" to Hong Kong after the story was already well-established. They may be retelling it for several reasons. First, because in good Chinese tradition, they are reluctant to contradict something that is so widely believed. Second, the implication is that their father has passed on this "advanced learning" to them. Therefore the story gives them added validity as "Grandmasters" and helps their own ricebowl. Neither of them say anything about an entire different version of WCK coming from Leung Bik...only an expanded understanding of the concepts and theories behind all WCK.

Keith

[t_niehoff]

Victor, Victor, Victor, . . .

Ultimatewingchun wrote:

Terence:

You're right about the role of the "individual" when learning martial arts.....VP

If you truly believed that, you wouldn't believe in the superiority of any art. If Rickson beats you does it prove Rickson is better than you or BJJ is better than TWC? TN

I have some comments and questions about an individual named: Terence....VP

Ah, I see . . . once again when folks can't respond intelligently on the issue it becomes personal. TN

You're always implying either covertly or overtly that William Cheung is a total liar about TWC ; that TWC is just one big marketing ploy; VP

Not entirely accurate. I think TWC is Cheung's interpretation of Yip Man WCK and that he has "modified" the curriculum to try to pass on WCK as he understands it (just as every other teacher does). The "story of TWC" he stole from Tai Ji to market his method. Not that he is any worse or better than most folks that sell their art. TN

that we're all a bunch of clones ; VP

What would you think if you went to a boxing gym run by Joe Frazier and everyone there was trying to box just in the same style as Smokin' Joe? I'll tell you what I would think: that what they were missing is that a good boxing coach tries to bring out the best boxer from the individual he's training, to give him the fundamentals of boxing, to help him develop those fundamentals, and then let him develop along the lines best suited for him (to build on the individual). It is easy for someone to see if they are a clone: are they and their training partners/students all trying to apply their skills in the same way? TN

we really can't bring it in the street; VP

Whenever I hear "on the street" I think folks really mean "as seen on TV." ;) Do you really think a measure of your skill is that you can deal with the average Joe "on the street" -- a guy who is out-of-shape, with little skill, etc. BJJ'ers don't guage their performance on their ability to submit some poor sap "on the street" -- they measure their personal level of skill by what quality of skillful opponent they can submit. Think about it. TN

> we should take on the likes of Rickson Gracie, or Tank Abbott, or Robert Chu, etc. VP

Oh, so now we bring my sifu into the discussion too? Look Victor, it is one thing for a person to claim, for example, that they have groundfighting in their WCK and to demonstrate it against folks that have no skill in groundfighting; it is quite another thing to make it work against someone truly skilled in groundfighting. In the first instance, it may work or it may have all sorts of weaknesses but you'll never know because you didn't really put it to the test; in the second instance, you'll have a much better idea. My point is the only way to really develop the skill is by facing those persons that can put what you are trying to do to the test. Is that really such a threatening proposition? TN

But what about Terence? Could it be that Terence is looking to tangle with someone? Someone who is, say, a skilled, resisting opponent? Is it Terence who would like to come out of the schoolyard and into the world of "individuality"? VP

Personal stuff again? I train all the time against skilled, resisting opponents -- this experience is what informs my opinion. And it is from this experience that I know that there is no superior lineage or MA system, and that as MAs we stand or fall on our own. I live in "the world of individuality" -- and that's why I don't call myself "ultimatewingchun" or spout "party-line propoganda". ;) TN

Terence

[Jim Roselando]

Wow!


What a conversation!


ROFLMAO


All this talk about this and that and who got what etc..


The one thing I keep noticing is this:

Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man


Hmmm?

I think some need to remember that Chan Wah Shun was supposed to have taken a stroke some 6 months after the very young teenager started and then Ng Chung So was responsible for the bulk of Yip's schooling.


So:

Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Ng Chung So-Yip Man


Oh yeah!


Please try to remember that Wong Wah Bo had more than one pupil! THAT IS THE MAIN THING TO THINK OF IN THIS WHOLE LEUNG BIK SPECIAL STORY.


Wong Wah Bo-Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun & Wong Sam etc..

Wong Wah Bo-Fok Bo Chuen-Yuen Kay San & Yuen Chai Wan etc..

So, since all we need to do is cross check the lineages to find similarities we can see what sounds highly unlikely or likely. Especially since the Koo Lo preservation and Yuen's preservation is so so so similar. For the TWC story to be accurate that would mean Wong Wah Bo would have had to teach Leung Jan TWO versions (one correct and one incorrect) and teach his other pupil just the incorrect one?


You decide!


Regards,

[reneritchie]

Hey Victor,


The answer is 8 years spent with Moy Yat. In case you've forgotten, it goes like this: Chan Wah Shun-Yip Man-Moy Yat.

That's Yip Man Wing Chun Kuen, *one* of the branches of Chan Wah-Shun WCK. Have you experienced Chan Yiu-Min, Ng Jung-So, Lui Yiu-Chai, or any of the branches of Yip Man's sihing so that you have a well rounded and cross-referenced idea of what Chan Wah-Shun taught?


The fact that you choose to believe that Leung Bik may not have taught anything to Yip Man, much less TWC...is your problem.

That's doubly fallacious. First, I don't choose to believe that, I choose to keep an open mind and am honest enough to admit there doesn't seem to be a clear answer either way. Second, its not my problem. It doesn't effect me one way or another. If, however, one day conclusive evidence is found that there was no Leung Bik connection, it will certainly be problematic to others.


It's up to you (and whoever else) to prove otherwise.

The burden of proof shifts from the claiment only when they've made their own (reasonable) case.


As for the Yang Taiji story...I'll look into it and if I find anything

I respect that, thank you.


What about you responding to my reasoning concerning the fact that Yip Man needed no publicity by trying to connect himself to Leung Bik?

I'm not sure I understand it. Yip Man surely needed publicity. HK was a highly competitive market and he no longer had his ancestral wealth to rely on. Teaching became a matter of rice in the bowl for him, and he needed a good crop of initial students to show he could teach, a good group of fighters to show what he offered was better than others, and good publicity so word would get out.


What about responding to Yip Chun's comments that not only did his father learn from Leung Bik but that

Yip Chun, as several people have heard him say directly over the years, respects not only his father, but all the stories that surround them and would never disrespect them in public.


What about this, Rene?

I find it balanced by accounts from the Mainland that Leung Bik knew little or no Wing Chun Kuen, and/or was not very good at what he knew. If that was the case, what would he have to teach? By contrast, Chan Wah-Shun won many challenge fights, and produced a number of very good students, including Ng Chung-So and Yip Man. His legacy is undoubtable, his teachings verifiable, his family still around.


And what about what I said concerning the 5' man vs. the 6' man.

We have differences in belief/experience wrt what is advanced application for smaller/larger people.


Or the fact that in TWC we do square up and fight on the horizontal centerline after gaining the superior position. Anything to say?

To what? Good, you follow standard WCK concepts? 8) We have the Jing San (Straight Body) and the Pien San (Side Body) in all branches, we have facing and flanking in all branches, which one we use depends on relative skill and personal style.

Here's some food for thought. What's "Side Neutral Stance" in Cantonese? How do you differentiate between "Center Line" and "Central Line" in Cantonese? In an art priding itself on being *more* traditional, it should be easy to relate the traditional (Cantonese) terms, as Cheung sifu would have learned them.


From this comment i already know you answer. I don't know about you John. Sounds a little close minded but that's ok. For me, i would go to any school just to pay some respects and talk to the people there. About the WC get together, from some of the post i've seen up to this point, i wouldnt go to it hehehe J/K

Train,

Why haven't you gone to James Lacy to learn White Tiger Wing Chun? Why haven't you gone to Mr. Chan to learn Tibetain Wing Chun? Why haven't you gone to Australia to learn Leung Chun Wing Chun? Are you closed minded?


**Tom, What are you saying? That person who touched hands with Chan Wah Shun was Leung Chun, not Leung Bik.

LOL! From http://www.cheungswingchun.com

"After Dr. Leung died, the two sons and Chan Wah Shun argued over who would become the next grandmaster. Chan challenged the two sons, and because he was so much bigger, he was still able to defeat them. Chan then chased the two sons out of the Fatshan area."

[Scott Powers]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KPM
[B]Hi Scott!

---I think I will have to respectfully disagree.

Nice to here from someone who has trained in each art form and can give first hand experence.

---Not with this part! :-) It is good to hear from someone that has experience in both systems.

To look at each system from a distance, sure people would compare at first apearance the systems simular step they take. But to compare without experence training in each system is foolish. It is disrespectful to both Grand Masters W.Cheung & G.Gee to say that we can look at their systems without experence training in them and know just what they are doing.

KPM wrote
---This I disagree with. Anyone with an eye trained in WCK can look at something as superficial and obvious as choreography of the forms and point out similarities. It doesn't take a rocket scientist nor a master of each respective system. And comparing something as straight-forward as choreography of the forms is neither disrespectful or foolish. It is no different that a WCK person looking at arts like Southern Mantis or Pak Mei and being able to point out that both fall into the category of being a "Southern Chinese In-fighting" method and for what reasons.

Scott wrote
--- I disagree with you on this. I think the point is that William Cheung & Garrett Gee Wing Chun may have similarities but are different systems. Just because they both have SLT,CK,BJ, means that you will get the same results. Anyone with Wing Chun experence can tell what the similarities are, but what makes them different? Chango has said he spent time training with both Masters. Hands on experence in their systems gives him insites over someone who is from a different system.
Just because people on the Forum have experence in Wing Chun does'nt mean you can tell what( Every System is Teaching.)

Only the Sifu of these Masters will be able to understand them completely. Speculating and or guessing does nothing but waste time. If you want to know what their system is about, them I suggest spending time with the Masters and get first hands on experence. If not then Chango should be the only person qualified to answer question on both system and there similarities or differences. If someone else has first hand experence in both system I would love to here there opinion.

KPM wrote
---Again, one doesn't have to be a master of the method to recognize similarities in something as straight-forward as form choreography. Its that simple. It doesn't take a genius or a master.

Scott wrote
---Again, all you see is similarities between the systems not what different information each one presents. Sure there forms look a like but, there identity and concepts are not.


KPM wrote
Chango:
---You've have told us that you see very little similarities between TWC and HFY at the theory level. But you didn't comment on the forms. How similar do you find the choreography between the forms? Are the HFY and TWC forms more similar to each other than either are to YMWCK? Thanks!

[Phil Redmond]

You wrote;

"Hmmm?
I think some need to remember that Chan Wah Shun was supposed to have taken a stroke some 6 months after the very young teenager started and then Ng Chung So was responsible for the bulk of Yip's schooling.
So:
Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Ng Chung So-Yip Man
Oh yeah!" JR

Oh No! If Ng Chung So was Chan Wah Shun's student, he was Yip Man's Sihing and not Yip Man's Sifu. Therefore his name can't be counted in the lineage you wrote above. It would be against Chinese MA tradition to say that Ng was Yip Man's Sifu.
Phil

[passing_through]

Hendrik, Hendrik, Hendrik,

Holding to your beliefs, you suffer all the more…

A,
All buddhist take vow to take refuge in Buddha , Dharma , and Sangha.
All buddhist will have to learn sutra and sastra. That is the buddha Dharma. That is Buddha's teaching.
Chinese Buddhist all makes a vow " deeply study the Sutra and Sastra to attain sea deep wisdom."

"all Buddhist" must behave as you describe, even in Chan? Suppose a Buddhist exists that refutes the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha, what then? Wouldn't he or she not be a "True Buddhist?"

You're "rules" above don't stand for much... in other places, you're fond of talking about vows of non-killing, yet,

"The Chinese sangha is usually completely vegetarian; but Buddhists in Sri Lanka eat sea food and do not consider this to be a violation of their rule against killing animals; and many Japanese orders also eat meat - usually with the proviso that the meat is donated rather than deliberately purchased."
- http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/mzs/vinaya.html

Where do the True Buddhists live? China, Sri Lanka, or Japan? What's true for you - is that true for everyone? True from what teaching you've received, is that true for everyone? How can that be possible? There is no teaching and no truth.

So, are you saying you dont have to learn buddha Dharma and claim you are a Chan school follower? and you can create your own term?

So, what I am saying is that there is a sky above the sky. Rather than struggle with the words like some Angel, Devil or Ghost, look at the weight of the words, heavier than 10,000 suns.

B,
Where ever there is sutra there is Buddha. So decide for yourself if Sutra is the heart of Chan and what is the Chan?

How did the authors of the sutras gain understanding before the sutras existed?

Diamond Sutra
<http://community.palouse.net/lotus/diamondsutra.htm>
So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. This is the reason why the Tathagata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the Good Law is to be likened unto a raft. [Does a man who has safely crossed a flood upon a raft continue his journey carrying that raft upon his head?] The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so mis-teaching!
(Section VI)

Even the Sutras must be understood as false and misleading!

Heart Sutra
(Very important to Zen)
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/heart-sutra.htm>

There are no Four Noble Truths, no wisdom and no gain! There is no Chan!

Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra
(“By Hui-Neng, the Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an, this is the classical scripture of Sudden Path Ch'an”)
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/platform-sutra.htm>
“Learned Audience, those who recite the word 'Prajna' the whole day long do not seem to know that Prajna is inherent in their own nature. But mere talking on food will not appease hunger, and this is exactly the case with these people. We might talk on Sunyata (Emptiness) for myriads of kalpas, but talking alone will not enable us to realize the Essence of Mind, and it serves no purpose in the end.”
(Chapter II)
“Learned Audience, if you wish to penetrate the deepest mystery of the Dharmadhatu and the Samadhi of Prajna, you should practice Prajna by reciting and studying the Vajracchedika (Diamond) Sutra <http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/diamond-sutra.htm>, which will enable you to realize the Essence of Mind.”
(Ch. II)

In the first quote, we should not merely talk on food, yet in the second quote, we should recite and study the Diamond Sutra. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Helpful Advice from Dogen
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/helpful-advice.htm>
“One need not necessarily depend on the words of the ancients, but must only think of what is really true.”

You don’t have to depend on the words of the ancients but on your own mind. Investigate and decide for yourself – don’t rely on the writings and sayings of others.

Essentials of Ch’an Practice
by Master Xuyun
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/essentials-of-chan-practise.htm>
“The Dharma that is spoken is not the true Dharma.”
“Therefore, to become a Buddha is the easiest, most unobstructed task. Do it by your-self. do not seek outside yourself for it.”

“It is nice to read the sutras and learn about Buddhist wisdom, helps us focus our understanding of Buddhism and how the expression of Chinese Buddhism came to be. People who always feel the need to quote the scriptures in order to show their understanding, only shows they have an intellectual understanding big or small, "not" success in Chan, if it be shallow or be it deep understanding. They are attached to words and letters, other peoples ideas, and are unable to express Chan in their own words, showing they have little actual experience and not a firm understanding. Enlightenment does not depend on the intellect to become spiritually enlightened. Chan is about the human spiritual experience. Length of time also has nothing whatsoever to do with deepness of understanding, or of ones spiritual experience! But ones spiritual maturity. Some people bloom, others might bloom late, or not at all.” - received from personal correspondence with a Chan Priest of the Hsu Yun (Empty Cloud) lineage, a practitioner and teacher of martial arts and Chan.

Food for thought... or non-food for non-thought

Jeremy R.

[reneritchie]

Phil is correct. Chan Wah-Shun was Yip Man's sifu, and just like Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung Tin, Wong Shun-Leung, William Cheung, etc. etc. helped Yip Man teach his students, Ng Jung-So, Lui Yiu-Chai, Chan Yiu-Min, etc. helped Chan Wah-Shun teach his. Just part of the familal model that, IMHO, makes TCMA so effective.

[Phenix]

Originally posted by reneritchie
"After Dr. Leung died, the two sons and Chan Wah Shun argued over who would become the next grandmaster. Chan challenged the two sons, and because he was so much bigger, he was still able to defeat them. Chan then chased the two sons out of the Fatshan area."



If this story is not a fact, Don't you think this is insulting the Mo Duk of Chan Wah Shun?

Can Koo Loo lineage vefified this story? It is not a fair deal stamp this on Chan Wah Shun until proven.


I suspect the truth of this story. At Chan Wah Shun's time, in Koo Loo there are LJ's decendent. In Poon Yee there is Yik Kam's decendent for sure ... and more.....So, what next grandmaster to be argue? Doesn't really make sense. If Chan really wants to be the Door Keeper of WCK. Then he has to challenge not only the two sons but everyone in that era who practiced WCK. Cho family was opening a martial art school in Poon Yee. I am sure Chan knows LJ has students in Koo Loo. So? AGain I might be wrong. But, if this story is a make up. Isn't it this is a slanding to ancestor?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

In a recent post on this thread addressed to Joy you wrote:
"There is no "clean" evidence Yip Man told anyone about Leung Bik, while there is direct evidence he never mentioned Leung Bik to his earliest students, and many of the other early students as well. So, we're left only with hearsay..."

And later in the same paragraph you wrote:..."There's no reason to disrespect Wang Kiu or William Cheung..."

NOW THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN BY PHONY BEHAVIOR!

By no "clean" evidence what you're really saying is that William Cheung's claim that Yip Man told him about Leung Bik is not
"clean"...meaning...not believable...meaning that you, Rene...are calling William Cheung a liar!

But when others say that there was never any mention of Leung Bik - they're telling the truth (according to Rene).....

NO REASON TO DISRESPECT WILLLIAM CHEUNG?

Then don't disrespect him by calling him (no matter how subtly you phrase it)...a liar!

You're a phony, Rene.

And your nose is growing.

[tparkerkfo]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
<<I am wondering how good his wing chun could be if Chan Wah Shun beat him up as the story goes. So much for a better system. LOL But if he existed,>>Tom

**Tom, What are you saying? That person who touched hands with Chan Wah Shun was Leung Chun, not Leung Bik.

I am not sure who is dense in this post. I have no clue what your talking about. Maybe I am missing something but where in the world did you come up with this? I hope your not reading into my comments, putting words in my mouth, or twisting anything I am saying. But this is out of left field from my discussion.

My commenst are simple. The story says Chan Wah Shun, with little training, defeated Leung Bik. Pure and simple. That is the story.

Ohhhh, wait, I get it. You mean if Leung Bik did not exist, who did Chan Wah Shun beat up. LOL. That story is tied to the existence of Leung Bik. If he did not exist then the story doesn't either. See, it would be interesting to talk to the other Chan Wah Shun lineages to get their account. There are a few out there and it is only a matter of time before the info comes out. Maybe he did, and maybe he did not exist. But if he did, then I am not sure how a better system could be defeated by a brute with hardly any training, AND we are supposed to beleive that system is better.

Tom
________
Starcraft 2 strategies (http://screplays.com/replays)

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Train,

Sorry to hear you can't make it. Perhaps we can work out one near SF when some HFY people can make it. Would you know if any one from HFY would be able to go?

This is an open event. I don't know about Hendrik. he is welcome and I would love to see him again. But his schedual is VERY demanding. Heck, he kind of showed up out of the blue the last time I saw him, if I remember corectly. I have not seen any Chris Chan students, but they are welcome too. Do you know any that would be interested?

As I have said before, visiting ones school is a bit challenging in many respects. If there is any hostility persived, then it may not be a good thing. There seems to be hostility between many people. This meeting is an open one with many different lineages. Dispite it being at some ones school, it is done in an open manner rather than just one or two people visiting anothers school.

Tom
________
Weed (http://wwweed.com/)

[Phenix]

"Holding to your beliefs, you suffer all the more…"


The sunyata can decease but the Varja heart never move a slight bit. ---- Surangama Sutra. ----HS

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

"A,
All buddhist take vow to take refuge in Buddha , Dharma , and Sangha.
All buddhist will have to learn sutra and sastra. That is the buddha Dharma. That is Buddha's teaching.
Chinese Buddhist all makes a vow " deeply study the Sutra and Sastra to attain sea deep wisdom." ---HS



"all Buddhist" must behave as you describe, even in Chan? Suppose a Buddhist exists that refutes the Buddha, Dharma, and the Sangha, what then? Wouldn't he or she not be a "True Buddhist?"

You're "rules" above don't stand for much... in other places, you're fond of talking about vows of non-killing, yet,

"The Chinese sangha is usually completely vegetarian; but Buddhists in Sri Lanka eat sea food and do not consider this to be a violation of their rule against killing animals; and many Japanese orders also eat meat - usually with the proviso that the meat is donated rather than deliberately purchased."




You have too many suppose. But certainly never study the Surangama sutra.

You are Talking about HFY is from Shao Lin Tradition right?
that is Chinese Sangha, NO?
So what to argue?

I only qoute Buddha's teaching. Stand much or not is your personal choice. you like it or not is up to you. --- HS



- http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Literature/essays/mzs/vinaya.html

Where do the True Buddhists live? China, Sri Lanka, or Japan? What's true for you - is that true for everyone? True from what teaching you've received, is that true for everyone? How can that be possible? There is no teaching and no truth.



True buddhist live in anywhere Surangama sutra was practiced.
True from the Teaching of Surangama sutra, Avatamsaka, Saddha pundarika, Varja sutra....

True from the teaching of Buddha. Is it possible or not is not upto your judgement but the factual legacy and teaching of Buddha. ----HS





So, are you saying you dont have to learn buddha Dharma and claim you are a Chan school follower? and you can create your own term?

So, what I am saying is that there is a sky above the sky. Rather than struggle with the words like some Angel, Devil or Ghost, look at the weight of the words, heavier than 10,000 suns.




" he who makes claim and tell others no precepts has to be follow... he who makes claim and tell others there is higher enlightenment...... " --- surangama sutra

That is exaxtly what the Demon follower claim according to the Buddha teaching in Surangama sutra

IF one is buddhist. follow the Buddha's teaching. If not one can create one's own. Free world. But if it is not Buddhism then it is not Buddhism. ---- HS







B,
Where ever there is sutra there is Buddha. So decide for yourself if Sutra is the heart of Chan and what is the Chan?

How did the authors of the sutras gain understanding before the sutras existed?



Do you know why all the Buddhism sutra start with "Thus I have heard ? HS






Diamond Sutra
<http://community.palouse.net/lotus/diamondsutra.htm>
So you should not be attached to things as being possessed of, or devoid of, intrinsic qualities. This is the reason why the Tathagata always teaches this saying: My teaching of the Good Law is to be likened unto a raft. [Does a man who has safely crossed a flood upon a raft continue his journey carrying that raft upon his head?] The Buddha-teaching must be relinquished; how much more so mis-teaching!
(Section VI)

Even the Sutras must be understood as false and misleading!





sure that is why one needs to study with Patriach and show legacy.... mind seal...

So where is HFY's legacy in Chan? ---HS





Heart Sutra
(Very important to Zen)
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/heart-sutra.htm>

There are no Four Noble Truths, no wisdom and no gain! There is no Chan!





This is the View of Broken and vanishing! exactly apply to your

"Even the Sutras must be understood as false and misleading!"

---- HS



Dharma Jewel Platform Sutra
(“By Hui-Neng, the Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an, this is the classical scripture of Sudden Path Ch'an”)
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/platform-sutra.htm>
“Learned Audience, those who recite the word 'Prajna' the whole day long do not seem to know that Prajna is inherent in their own nature. But mere talking on food will not appease hunger, and this is exactly the case with these people. We might talk on Sunyata (Emptiness) for myriads of kalpas, but talking alone will not enable us to realize the Essence of Mind, and it serves no purpose in the end.”
(Chapter II)
“Learned Audience, if you wish to penetrate the deepest mystery of the Dharmadhatu and the Samadhi of Prajna, you should practice Prajna by reciting and studying the Vajracchedika (Diamond) Sutra <http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/diamond-sutra.htm>, which will enable you to realize the Essence of Mind.”
(Ch. II)

In the first quote, we should not merely talk on food, yet in the second quote, we should recite and study the Diamond Sutra. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.




Before Gautama Buddha past away. He told his students " following the Precept"

If one don't even want to take the Precept of Buddha. What good is talking about Buddhism? or qouating Sutras?

Now, where is the term Sam Mo Kiu, Fao Kiu.... from? Which Sutras? --HS





Helpful Advice from Dogen
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/helpful-advice.htm>
“One need not necessarily depend on the words of the ancients, but must only think of what is really true.”

You don’t have to depend on the words of the ancients but on your own mind. Investigate and decide for yourself – don’t rely on the writings and sayings of others.


Sure, if you at that state of patraich.

By the way what is your legacy in the mind seal transmittion? who certified you? -HS






Essentials of Ch’an Practice
by Master Xuyun
<http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/essentials-of-chan-practise.htm>
“The Dharma that is spoken is not the true Dharma.”
“Therefore, to become a Buddha is the easiest, most unobstructed task. Do it by your-self. do not seek outside yourself for it.”


Sure, that is XuYun's state.
Say that when you are certified by XuYun. If Xu Yun didn't certified you. Then, you are just qouting him think you are at his state. --- HS




“It is nice to read the sutras and learn about Buddhist wisdom, helps us focus our understanding of Buddhism and how the expression of Chinese Buddhism came to be. People who always feel the need to quote the scriptures in order to show their understanding, only shows they have an intellectual understanding big or small, "not" success in Chan, if it be shallow or be it deep understanding. They are attached to words and letters, other peoples ideas, and are unable to express Chan in their own words, showing they have little actual experience and not a firm understanding. Enlightenment does not depend on the intellect to become spiritually enlightened. Chan is about the human spiritual experience. Length of time also has nothing whatsoever to do with deepness of understanding, or of ones spiritual experience! But ones spiritual maturity. Some people bloom, others might bloom late, or not at all.” - received from personal correspondence with a Chan Priest of the Hsu Yun (Empty Cloud) lineage, a practitioner and teacher of martial arts and Chan.



Hsu Yun teaches the person who has the understanding of Sutras to go one step further...
But not the person who has no clue of what is what to define his own Chan. -HS


Food for thought... or non-food for non-thought



One needs to learn Tan Bong Fok before talks about natural responding, If one wants to Learn WCK. Otherwise, it is dreaming. -HS

[reneritchie]

Victor,

Please don't get your panties in a bunch. I wasn't thinking of Cheung sifu at all in that quote, but to the "interview" of Yip Man by Mok Poi-On where Yip Man supposedly recounts, first hand, the story of meeting Leung Bik. This would be the only direct example of Yip Man (and not one of his students) relaying the story. However, it is "unclean" in that Leung Ting's involvement in the interview, and the assertion that it was actually he, and not Yip Man, who fed most of the information to Mok, makes it "unclean" or "tainted", and thus it returns to the neutral state for me.

And please don't drag the conversation down with name calling or petty political personalism. I have no interest in trading insults with you. I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand the culture the story is coming from (which your repeated use of buzz words like "liar" shows you've yet to acknowledge).

If you really believe you have a logical and convincing argument to present, I'm very much interested. If not, I'll leave you to your beliefs.

Hendrik,

Your post on Chan Wah-Shun raises some very interesting points. Clearly, Leung Jan wasn't the only one teaching WCK in Foshan at the time, so why would he have to challenge Leung Bik or Leung Chun? Also, Leung Jan's pharmacy, which he reportedly inherited from his father, was not taken over by any of his sons, and was sold to another family. Chan Wah-Shun didn't take over the pharmacy, where Leung Jan taught, so again, what did he gain by challenging either of them? And even if he did, and beat them at WCK, wouldn't they have sold the pharmacy, and not Leung Jan? Could Leung Bik have moved away before Leung Jan sold the pharmacy, thus explaining why his children didn't take it over? And if they did, it couldn't have been because of Chan Wah-Shun challenging them, since Leung Jan was still alive and still teaching. Very confusing! Koo Lo is a very important point as well. It was Leung Jan's native town. He retired there. He taught his nephews, and others there. Perhaps their records could be helpful? But then, as Jim has said, Koo Lo records don't indicate Leung Jan's children having significant skill/knowledge in the art. Also confusing.

Jeremy, Hendrik,

Very interesting discussion on Buddhism. If you can keep it free from personal attacks, I think it will turn into a great thread of its own.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Phil/Rene,


Ok. You guys are correct! I understand your point. In the traditional Chinese way that is true. Yet! (I will use this as an example) Would that mean Phil's first WC teacher (not sure if it was Duncan or Moy) was his sifu and Willeum Cheung would just be his Sibak since its still under the Yip Man school lineage? I know how the Chinese schools think about this but I also think like an American. If a 13 year old boy joined a Kung Fu school and 6 months after he began the teacher took stroke and was unable to teach then I would list his Sihing that was his main instructor as his sifu. Thats just my views. I know its not correct in the traditional sense but its just my opinion.

Does anyone know if Chan Wah's club closed after he took stroke or did the seniors take it over?


See ya,


Oh No! If Ng Chung So was Chan Wah Shun's student, he was Yip Man's Sihing and not Yip Man's Sifu. Therefore his name can't be counted in the lineage you wrote above. It would be against Chinese MA tradition to say that Ng was Yip Man's Sifu.


Phil is correct. Chan Wah-Shun was Yip Man's sifu, and just like Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung Tin, Wong Shun-Leung, William Cheung, etc. etc. helped Yip Man teach his students, Ng Jung-So, Lui Yiu-Chai, Chan Yiu-Min, etc. helped Chan Wah-Shun teach his. Just part of the familal model that, IMHO, makes TCMA so effective.

[reneritchie]

Jim,

It doesn't have anything to do with "first sifu". There are sifu relationships, sihing relationships, etc. etc. Ng Jung-So was Yip Man's sihing, not his sifu. It's a personal relationship, like a real father. You can student with sihing, with sibak, with sigung etc. all within the confines of those relationships, you could also take one of them, or someone completely separate, as another sifu. Different things.

I believe Chan Yiu-Min took over the school proper, while different people followed him, Ng Jung-So, Lui Yiu-Chai, and perhaps others.