Can we have a mature discussion about History/Lineage?

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

All,
The number one generator of angry, offensive posts on here is the discussion of lineage/history. Can we, as an online community, have a mature discussion of the lineage and history of WCK? And what exactly would that be anyway? What would be the criteria, what would be unacceptable? How much would you be willing to listen to someone tell you that your version of the WCK history is wrong? Where do you draw the line? It seems to me that as long as people are convinced that they are in possession of THE TRUTH(c) that whatever they say should just be accepted by the community as a whole, and if someone were to disagree they would be a fool at the very least. For example, UltimateWingChun has recently included a section in one of his postings that I've deleted that he maintains is critically important for understanding the art of TWC. He also maintains that this is THE TRUTH(c), and there's no reason that anyone should doubt this or remove this section from his posting. I'm going to repost just that section here for readers to consider. Since it only applies to one particular group in the WC world, I'm going to change the names, and only the names, then post it a few times so you can scroll down and find the version that would apply to you:

"Of course some, like Wong Sheung Leung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE WONG SHEUNG LEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Wong Sheung Leung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Wong Sheung Leung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Wong Sheung Leung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."

"Of course some, like William Cheung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE WILLIAM CHEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as William Cheung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what William Cheung did, said, or thought (in those days it was William Cheung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."

"Of course some, like Garrett Gee, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE GARRETT GEE NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM WONG MING, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Garrett Gee falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Garrett Gee did, said, or thought (in those days it was Garrett Gee who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."

"Of course some, like Sum Nung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE SUM NUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YUEN KAY SHAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Sum Nung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Sum Nung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Sum Nung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."

"Of course some, like Leung Ting, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE LEUNG TING NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM YIP MAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Leung Ting falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Leung Ting did, said, or thought (in those days it was Leung Ting who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."

"Of course some, like Kenneth Cheung, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE KENNETH CHEUNG NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM LEUNG SHEUNG, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Kenneth Cheung falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Kenneth Cheung did, said, or thought (in those days it was Kenneth Cheung who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."

"Of course some, like Chan Wah Shan, who had already started their own association, would have balked at the idea...BUT SINCE CHAN WAH SHAN NEVER LEARNED ANYTHING DIRECTLY FROM LEUNG JAN, much less being his "final" closed door disciple - and chosen successor - as Chan Wah Shan falsely claimed...none of the guys in the REAL association would have cared what Chan Wah Shan did, said, or thought (in those days it was Chan Wah Shan who was the black sheep of the family, for the reasons I just gave."


Are we all really ok with this sort of thing? And what if it does upset you? For any discussion to take place, it seems to me that one would have to be at least somewhat more diplomatic about their opinions. No one has to change their opinion, but is there really any reason so be obnoxious about it? I’m more than willing to allow lineage and history discussions, as I feel we are capable of having them in a mature fashion. Would anyone like to put for their own set of criteria that they would use to make such a determination, as to what is or isn’t a valid discussion of lineage/history?

I'm suspending the "sudden death" warnings/bans for this thread, and this thread alone(no posting bits from here on other threads!), as I would like for people to please include examples of what they consider to be appropriate and inappropriate. But just examples, let's not turn this thread into a lineage argument in and of itself....

[reneritchie]

If someone is sincere, and can reasonably back up what they say, I have no problem with them discussing it, my lineage, their lineage, the popes lineage, whatever.

However, where we run into problems are the insincere people who will not under any circumstances discuss things in a mature manner, or who spam the same political attacks or questions veiled as political attacks which have already been proven false or answered, just to take a stab at another teacher/lineage.

There should definately be no double standards. If one lineage is acceptable for debate, every lineage should be. If one ancestor is acceptible to debate, all should be.

After the latest round, however, I'm sadly convinced that there are very few here with the ability and the desire to sincerely discuss WCK history (Levi, Jim Roselando, and perhaps one or two others are the only ones who come to mind).

About the only solution I can see, if we want to have this kind of discussion, is for *heavy* moderation. Any post not directly addressing the topic (especially posts which offer opinions on other posters, what they should or shouldn't post, how they should or shouldn't post, etc.) or which seek to derail or divert the conversation should be deleted, and everyone sincere in their interest to discuss the topic should help out by not letting themselves be drawn off topic.

As this routinely becomes a faith/belief based discussion, however, and we've seen over history how well those work out, even then, it might be difficult.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I never said "there is no reason for anyone to doubt this"....I was simply stating what I believe the truth to be...people can choose to believe it or not believe it...and as you know, I told you - via private message - that someone very famous, and whose word has always been very credible (I'm not referring to William Cheung in this instance)...told me something about the mystery man that you referred to in your last post.... not just including what I wrote in that post...but even more revealing information about a public event (with many witnesses) - that acts as evidence to support what I did say in that post.

[Grabula]

The problem is that most of it works, it's just everyone insists on believeing theirs works better.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Let me also add that in my view the kind of "heavy moderation" that Rene Ritchie just suggested - IF ADOPTED - would completely sterilize and thereby ruin the forum....

We are all adults...but what he suggests would turn this forum into some kind of overdone, new age... "I'm ok, you're ok, and wouldn't life just be wonderful if we would all just NEVER criticize each other EVER about ANYTHING?"...mentality.

Do you see the implications of this? Anybody could make any false claim they want about themselves, their style, their lineage, their instructor...and the rest of us...according to Rene's logic...would just have to be "polite" about it...instead of refuting it as a bunch of lies.

Is that what martial arts is about? Is that how adults should attempt to deal with each other? I would hardly think so. This is La La Land talk.

[marcelino31]

Hello Sandman,

There is nothing wrong with believing what you believe in.
But when you post your beliefs on a forum always expect them
to be challenged.

One of the reason's I enjoyed reading "Complete Wing Chun"
was the idea that there were many versions of wing chun out there and not simply a "traditional vs modified" mindset --meaning, only one real wing chun and all others are bunk!

Now here comes the part no one likes. People like to preach
but when you actually ask them for evidence they are unable
to provide it. We get stories like someone learning WC by peeking
in through a hole; this fairytale story is all very nice but also hard to believe in. And such a story is the basis behind the supreme wing chun system?

And when someone says they learnt X from someone during some time period from Y to Z then you have a right to question these things. If dates are unverifiable or contradict other dates, then this can lead to arguments and also to spilling the beans!

Dates and evidence can be questioned. And if you provide your own evidence and facts and people retaliate by attacking the person and not the facts that are under dispute then you cannot have an intelligent discussion.

So have the plaintiff state their facts, present their evidence.
And allow the defendants to present there own facts and evidence to counter. Allow each party to be cross examined.

You be the judge...

[pvwingchun]

I would love to see a thread like this. It could be a valuable tool to those interested in the various histories but have not had time or are just beginning there own searches in gathering information on some of the more obscure branches of Wing Chun.

If people would post there sources for their particular histories that would be a good start.

Claims that this is the truth cannot be avoided because we all beleive are respected history. The problem is the lack of open minds believeing that what they have been told is gospel truth or that they are the experts. Unfortunately those who know the truth are long since gone and we can only accurately trace back a few generations.....after that facts become cloudy and obscure.

Unfortunately as Rene noted there are so many in here that as soon as there history is called into question or challenged, even in the most diplomatic of ways, automatically attack the poster like a pack of rabid wild dogs it is impossible to learn anything as it soon becomes a shouting match.

I agree that there has to be heavy moderation, and diligence by those who want to participate in ignoring those who insist on dragging the discussion into the mud and keeping the discussion on track. No one lineage in here has the keys to the truth and as long as the posters realize that and treat it as it is, once again borrowing from Rene, "faith/belief based discussion" since the facts difficult to come by and even then at times are questionable.

John

[WCis4me]

I found this at the VTM site today:

"Truth, not subjective opinion, in that research must remain at the center of everyone's focus. It is important for any and all serious martial artists to seek truth in what they do. Anything short of truth represents illusion that can ultimately become a fatal weakness. Seeking the true roots of a system is nothing less than an extension of the search for ultimate truth in one's own Kung Fu. At no time should the pursuit of one's true origins be viewed as threatening. However, knowing one's roots will not automatically make one a better martial artist. The Ving Tsun Museum staff remains fully aware of this fact. Personal choice for specific strategies, tactics, and techniques, along with the 'heart' put into mastering them, will ultimately describe one's depth of Kung Fu knowledge and skill. Identifying a specific system or systems as the true roots of modern day expressions does not, in itself, describe those roots as superior to other expressions of the system, yet some practitioners in the Wing Chun community at large keep attempting to make such an assertion. This type of comparison is subjective in nature and can only be made by individuals (for themselves) in their personal search for truth - a search that must be grounded in real world experience with the systems being compared.

Today's Wing Chun practitioners and families, regardless of name, all ultimately come from the same roots. The search for those roots leaves no room for comparing subjective value of one family or lineage to another. All serious practitioners should embrace any endeavor to determine the truth of their roots. Discoveries made by any of the families and researchers pursuing truth through the application of science hand-to-hand should be greeted with jubilation, not resentment. Wing Chun practitioners from all lineages are ultimately brothers and sisters. We should strive to know as much as we can about each other, without falling into the trap of making subjective comparisons. To demonstrate that one posture, structure, energetic, etc. is most efficient in terms of human genetic code is not an open license to criticize other postures that have also been successful. Instead, such a demonstration should enhance everyone's understanding of Wing Chun as a science."

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

There is much more to it.

I completely agree with this (and have stated as much numerous times on this forum, prior to seeing it). I would argue the need for differences in opinion to be discussed based on it. I feel that it completely supports Sifu Parlati's (among others) position.

I think it is important to note the 'conduct' that is, and should be expected, during the search/discussion/comparisons etc. It is betrayals of that conduct that is not to be tolerated, not the discussions themselves, if they fall within the boundaries.

In my limited research thus far I find discrepancies across the board of lineage's/styles/original students, i.e.. being the longest serving student, being the greatest fighter, dates of events, etc. All (that I have seen so far) make claims, many make the exact same claims as those of their brothers i.e.. who was most senior, most involved in assisting, longest serving, closest to Yip Man, etc. Then there are also agreements across the board.

To discuss it all in a mature, respectful, manner, only helps us all interpret the 'truth' as we see/ have found it.
Ones own 'truth' is subjective to personal interpretation doesn't make it not the truth, just a different take on it. (I posted a detailed description of what I mean by this, yesterday, in 'diversity' thread.

Anyway that is my take on it FWIW.
Warm regards
Vicky

[Ultimatewingchun]

The only way to allow the cream (and the true facts) to EVER get the opportunity to rise to the top; and conversely, for those who are incompetent and the false claims they make to sink into obscurity (where they and their falsehoods belong) - is to be very careful about not overdoing censorship.

I think that the only things that should be FORBIDDEN AND DELETED is foul language and the threat to do violence to others...other than that... ANYTHING GOES...so as to allow the forum posters to police themselves (ie. - "Hey, soandso, stop trying to take this thread off course with your foolish remarks")....

It won't always be pretty...It won't always be pleasant...but it will occasionally produce some great debates, discussions, and threads - as well as giving people the opportunity to say what they believe - free of censorship....and it's called DEMOCRACY.

[WCis4me]

Ultimatewingchun wrote:

I think that the only things that should be FORBIDDEN AND DELETED is foul language and the threat to do violence to others...other than that... ANYTHING GOES...so as to allow the forum posters to police themselves (ie. - "Hey, soandso, stop trying to take this thread off course with your foolish remarks")....
I agree but would describe it as personal attacks on the poster (on or off list), or diversion from the topic at hand (move it to a new thread) should not be tolerated. Discussing/arguing that you have a very different take on things should not be based on personal agenda's such as, I hate 'x' and his/her teaching knowlege is BS, because his/her teacher 'y' lied about my teacher 'A'.
As long as you can back up where you get your knowledge (about history) from with tangible evidence (using various opposing style/s representation of facts in quotes is very useful and more unbiased), it isn't personal. The big difference is some are willing to dig deeper than others when they research, so when they bring their findings to light, some get VERY defensive and don't know how to do anything but attack with ridiculous and misconstrued claims, personal attacks (filled with lies that are easily discounted with tangible evidence) etc. There in lies the heart of the problems as of late. If you are going to say something, back it up with tangible proof (links, quotes, events with witnesses, meetings with others from other lineages, etc) from more than one source, if you can't then don't say it, or if you decide to say it anyway(with limited biased research) and it is refuted, don't embarrass yourself further by becoming a child and have a tantrum over it, choose to grow from it instead.

Vicky

[Ultimatewingchun]

I said it won't always be pretty...and it won't always be pleasant. Let me add another one...IT WON'T ALWAYS BE EASY...to allow anything - other than foul langauge and threats of violence - to be posted.

In other words...instead of deleting EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING SEEMINGLY CONTROVERSIAL on any given thread (after observing that one or both of the two forbiddens just mentioned were committed)...instead of that...

the moderator would instead be urged NOT to delete anything but the offending posts. In other words - forego any "one size fits all" policy - and just delete the offensive posts.

This would require more careful and measured work (and judgment) on the moderators' part...analogous to Supreme Court decisions that only overturn "certain "aspects of particular laws while leaving "certain other"aspects in place.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Let me be even more specific...If someone of significant stature...as well as being someone who is in a position to know...if that person tells me that he knows (because he saw with his own two eyes) that soandso's claim to be a direct student of Yip Man is false....He knows this first hand - because he says he was there...

Am I required to never post that on a forum thread?

Because it might "hurt the feelings" of some people who believe in the one whose claims are now in question?

Is that the kind of sanitized discussion we really want here?

People don't have to believe me if I make such a statement...I can't require that...BUT I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY IT!

[Alpha Dog]

Sometimes you just gotta admit to yourself that you're right and move on.

[reneritchie]

The problem is, there is no truth, only opinion. Ask about what happened last week in your own house and you will likely get 3 different opinions, all rabidly sure they're the "truth" (anyone who's grown up in a family knows this). And that's only last week in your own house. Make it 150+ years ago on the other side of the world, and anyone even remotely using terms like "truth" needs to put down the blunt down and back away from the table for a few moments.

All we have are opinions, some far better grounded than others, but opinions none the less. It isn't pretty, it isn't packaged, it isn't all neat and tidy, but that's it. The only truth is that truth itself can easily become the illusion/delusion.

The hard and real of it is history is serious business for serious people who can hold down a serious discussion. Its for mature people who don't have massive ego investments in one story or another, who don't put themselves ahead of the art, who know enough about the art and the related material to engage in a productive dialog, and whose opinions are formed by the information, not the other way around.

That's not politically correct, its not catering to the median or to the culture of entitlement that's firmly taken root, but its the long and the short of it.

Anyone can have an opinion, and anyone can state that opinion. Coming to a serious, independantly formed opinion you are capable of rationally and logically discussing, evolving as part of the process, and candidly knowing its strengths and weaknesses takes sterner stuff, and few here have shown either the ability or interest in it.

[BetaSao]

I think that sharing information on one's lineages, with or without proof (sometimes all you might have is information from your teacher, and a lot of traditional teachers, especially those from China, don't necessary have the proof that one would like to have) is beneficial and definitely interesting. However, that (proof) is not what is the cause of politics. What is typically the problem is when a person tries to force his/her beliefs on others and trying to get other people to buy in, rather than just sharing with an open mind and respecting everyone'e opinion.

Regarding the successor situation, do keep in mind that there has not been really a flagship carrier per se for the last few generations. Leung Jan was not the designated heir/head of Wing Chun.... he was merely the most well-known WC practitioner to the western world, and a lot of this has to do with the proximity of FutShan to Canton, hence to Hong Kong and from there to the outside world. Chan Wah Shun was not the WC head after Leung Jan, nor was Pan Nam, nor was Gee Sim, nor was Yip Man, etc.... There is no reason to believe that there ever will be a designated heir/head successor to Yip Man as all his students how have their own lineages. However, we can all truly benefit by sharing our respective lineage's characteristics with each other and research our differences. The more differences we encounter, acknowledge and understand, the closer we will be to the truly original Wing Chun created by its founder.

[PaulH]

I observed in our forum that there are mostly two kinds of history: his story and my stery. With respect to the first, I'm not him and I didn't see it. The second is more believable to me, but to others it's plain fable and old wives' tales. As I seek the center of this ongoing contention, I'm firmly persuaded that there shoud be no story. This is the truth, justice and the forum way.

Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

And if I were to say that..."IN MY OPINION, the following account of what happened back in Hong Kong is the TRUTH"...would that be ok?...if what I then proceeded to state offended some people loyal to soandso? Is that still ok? Am I allowed to use the word truth in this manner?

Because if it is OK...then I, for one, could live with that disclaimer... (IN MY OPINION)... preceding such a "controversial" statement that might follow the disclaimer.

But just don't tell me that I shouldn't be allowed to say what I believe (in my opinion)... is the truth...for that would be FULLBLOWN CENSORSHIP.

(Sorry if I'm boring you, Alpha Dog)....By the way..."ALPHA DOG"?!
Couldn't your parents come up with a better name than that?

Poor mutt....I feel bad now...Here's a pat on the head!

[John Weiland]

Sandman,

I agree with marcelino31.

I think you are missing the point. Personally, I am in favor of truth in advertising. The world market for Wing Chun is so large, anyone who can fool just a fractional percentage can still get away with most anything, but its up to the larger Wing Chun community to out the phony claims.

No one wants to read a politically correct sanitized discussion. Lineage discussion is valid. If someone lies in one area, it places doubt on what they say in another. Often those whose claims of lineage are in doubt posit themselves as an authority by claiming high titles or sole possession of the truth.

Often too, the actors in many of these exposes of phony exalted leaders are still alive and the claimants do not parade their suspect claims in front of their critics, but skulk back to their isolated cult followers and spin another tale. Just to clarify the point, when real Wing Chun folks get together, none of them are claiming to be the grandmaster of the others. If someone makes this claim, first, show me the proof; second, demonstrate true skills to their peers, in front of their peers.

Finally, there are articles in this month's e-zine which are filled with politics. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Gene Ching can pontificate politics, then KFO is inconsistent in censoring the members' opinions. The role of moderator should be to moderate rude and inappropriate behavior, not to decide which facts can come out. Frankly, I haven't seen your judgement to be so special in this regard.

Regards,

[reneritchie]

Victor,

Personally, I have no problem with that, and think its actually, ethically, the only right thing to do. Legends have their place, so do history, but one shouldn't be wrapped up and sold as the other. If you say something is your opinion, or what you heard your sifu say, or whatever, that's fine. If you claim it as *the truth* and claim to have *the evidence* and never show it or prove it, its only *the BS*.

And, of course, we should all remember its WCK history we're discussing, not proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, child abuse, government kick backs, illegal toxic dumping, or anything even remotely resembling a dire, life-threatening issue.

Fun has its place.

[pvwingchun]

Sifu Parlati


And if I were to say that..."IN MY OPINION, the following account of what happened back in Hong Kong is the TRUTH"...would that be ok?...

Yep, that is your version of the truth the problem IMO would come would someone would take offense for you stating the truth as you believe it. But you should expect to be questioned on that and as long as you can take the heat of the fire and provide reaoning for your befief than you should be able to say it. I see no problem there.

John

[Alpha Dog]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

(Sorry if I'm boring you, Alpha Dog)....By the way..."ALPHA DOG"?!
Couldn't your parents come up with a better name than that?

Poor mutt....I feel bad now...Here's a pat on the head!

I wasn't mocking you, Ultimatewingchun, or suggesting that I find you boring. You took my comment in completely the opposite manner from which it was intended. At any rate I needn't explain further.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Alpha Dog


I wasn't mocking you, Ultimatewingchun, or suggesting that I find you boring. You took my comment in completely the opposite manner from which it was intended. At any rate I needn't explain further.
Alpha Dog,

Not only are you insightful and clever, but a gentleman too! :D One of these days, you're going to be held up as a good example.

Dang, I wish I could be like that. :p

Best regards,

[Alpha Dog]

I thought you hated me, John. What gives?

Do I feel a group hug coming on or what?

[reneritchie]

John,

In theory, I agree with you, but in practice, there's no way for a fraction of the community to sort real discussion of phoney claims from phoney discussion of real claims.

So, if its the community that we're interested in, they're not served either way (they can just as easily see your sifu and sigung, who are well established, attacked maliciously, and not know the difference).

In the end, we can only hope that the rational, intelligent elements will out, and that information shared will let these fractions of the community come to their own informed opinions. Will it work for everyone? Well, clearly not those that think Aliens assasinated Kennedy, the moon walk was staged in Navada, or anyone who watches the FOX network, but I submit their not the critical mass anyway, bless their when-animals-attacked-them little hearts.

Also, not to forget, that nature often takes care of the really bogus anyway. That particular kind of crazy can't stand its own weight and crumbles in on itself eventually. The 20 year old master of 300 systems trained in Tibetain Ninja Shaolin Temple, and operating out of momas-basement in futtbuck, nowhere is not long for the MA world.

[Ultimatewingchun]

AlphaDog:

I had a "feeling" you were doing the complete opposite of what I was implying...but I wasn't sure...decided to draw out a more conclusive response from you...

Forgive the intrusion...and please send my warmest regards to Don Chi Sao - next time you attend the wedding of any of his family members...

[Alpha Dog]

You see, Sifu Parlati, that is why you are the Master and I, the humble student.

[KingMonkey]

Im afraid the answer is no.

We should have a separate forum so that history buffs like Rene et al can endlessly debate these boring non-issues and argue amongst themselves and those of us interested in fighting can learn from each other in an apolitical setting without these distractions.
I also believe that mods should not allow evangelising for any one lineage, this is not conducive to everyone getting along........

[PaulH]

Well, the fact is Rene and some other historian buffs actually share very good info on WC fighting methodology and other WC-related issues in comparison to other forum members. Their fruit of history will be appreciated in due season. Let give credit where it is due even though you or I may not like their bitter taste.

Regards,

[BetaSao]

Some excellent points there.... especially the notations "in my opinion", etc.... once that is stated, there really should be no issues because the author is merely stating a belief that he/she has, regardless of its authenticity. People should respect that and what that implies.

[kj]

The problem, as I see it, isn't lineage history. The problem is human nature. More specifically in a forum such as this, tendencies toward:


Making thoughtless or intentionally rude, insulting, or slanderous comments (about anyone)
Readers and writers with chips on their shoulders (about anyone or anything)
Readers and writers making assumptions (about others)
Readers who take things personally
People who can’t or won’t train themselves to abide by forum rules, rules of civil discourse, or both
A constant influx of new people to be trained in forum rules and rules of civil discourse
Trolls
Inability to cut each other some slack


As long as we have all these tendencies sloshing around in the same pot (and as passionate humans, we always will), problems are bound to crop up.

The only reasonable solution I know of is persistent, mature, and even handed moderation against a fixed set of rules or guidelines. A thankless, sometimes imperfect, but much needed task. I’ve seen other methods, and save where participants are sufficiently self-moderating (not on any Wing Chun forums!), I’ve seen them fall short or fail.

IMHO, anything should (and could) be fair game for discussion IFF contributors were able to post on the subject in a civilized, and reasonably mature and considerate way. I do feel that the largest onus should be on the contributors to keep their material in compliance with stated guidelines (whatever the guidelines are). Virtually all of us could improve our knack at this, despite false steps in the learning process now and then.

Basically, we all need to be responsible for our own behavior. Those who refuse to take such responsibility, IMHO, volunteer by default to be edified, moderated or excused. Even this isn't "judging" anyone, it's just saying these are the rules here and sticking with that story. This is my view of forum participation, and most things in general. When things aren’t to our liking, the first place to check for proper housekeeping is at home.

What we need is the perfect balance of civility and brutal honesty. Danged if I know how to achieve that, LOL. But it's still a goal worth striving for. There is no panacea; there is only continuous improvement.

Having said all of that from a general frame of reference, here are my thoughts on the quote above more specifically:

[list=a]
I don't approve of the tone or phrasing in the example cited. It isn't the worst I've seen, but I do feel that section failed to meet the forum criteria, and could have been better worded.
I am personally willing to cut the author some slack, especially as he was learning and improving significantly in his manner of discourse in this forum over time. Strict as I am to the rules, bonus points for effort are sometimes justified and positive motivators.
I did feel that the author was making significant efforts to offer something constructive overall, and making some progress in building some much needed bridges, even if not in the cited passage specifically.
The author showed that, while human like the rest of us, he is not incorrigible and his intent with respect to the rest of us seemed sincere enough.
He was being really generous overall. It is an awful lot of work to type up that much material, even if he did make a misjudgment in certain embedded comments.
[/list=a]

Too bad there isn't a "penalty box" option for posts, whereby the author could fix them up or explain them before they reappeared. Of course even there was such an option, it would only further burden the moderator. There's is always a dilemma. <sigh>

Bottom line for me, is that the weighting must fall to the moderator's call. IMHO, on this or any forum, moderator's call is just an extension of the rules. If any of us don't like the rules or the calls, it's up to us to implement work arounds or find other places to play. Blame game buys nobody nothing.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[rubthebuddha]

i think it's a great idea, and i haven't seen any sound argument to say otherwise. if we want to participate, and sandman is willing to help us out, then we do so. if we don't, it's like skipping over ESPN whenever bowling is on -- you just move on and don't have to give it any second thought.

honestly, i like it when people like rene or jim or john discuss the heck out of history. even if no one's story matches another person's perfectly, what's important is that information is being discussed back and forth. every time one of these folks says something, they always seem to bring in MORE outside information than the topic at hand requires, and i enjoy that additional stuff just as much. it's about learning. it's why i study martial arts, and it's why i'm here.

i'm glad sandman asked the question, and i'm glad he included my sigung in his first e-mail -- i'd have felt slighted if he hadn't included the faux slight against my lineage along with the other ones. :)

[Ernie]

king monkey thank you for putting it striaght out
We should have a separate forum so that history buffs like Rene et al can endlessly debate these boring non-issues and argue amongst themselves and those of us interested in fighting can learn from each other in an apolitical setting without these distractions.
it completly amazes me on how people that are supposed to be learning to fight in a advanced and scientific system get so cought up in the marketing schemes of the past.
who cares what happened and who said what . it wont make you fight any better ,
this is not church or history class this is combat.
if you have some strange desire to feel connected to some dead person , or some burned out blow hard sifu , then by all means join the cult , but it won't make you any better.
if you can't pull your skills off then who cares what your great grand master super man did.
combat is combat , it's your personal journey , if by involving your self with this family or that sifu you think magic wing chun fairy dust will make you good , your deluded.
this is just as bad as people fighting over the perfect tan sau , or how much bend is in your big toe when you do the super secret close door technique ,
it's all a waste of time .
work out apply it refine it .
make your future , don't get caught up in the scams of the past , once it became a money thing it lost it's soul .
martial arts are progressive , digging up what ever corpse invented it , is a complete waste of time , screw the past , what can you add to improve the next generation
o.k. i'm off my soap box .

[PaulH]

Ernie,

While you are getting off the opera box, I like to point out it's their waste of time not yours! People are people. Each have certain rights, priviliges, and pursuit of whatever makes them happy in this privately-owned forum. We should speak of what we are best of and hopefully some kindred souls will join in the conversation. We can politely disagree on what they say and hold firm to our chosen course. It's a human and civil thing to do.

Regards,

[Ernie]

paul
i thought this was a wing chun forum , you know to share ideas on combat .
you make it sound like '' love connection ''
or lonely people infront of there computers just trying to make friends.
i'm sure there are plenty of other places online for digital hugs and kisses.
sorry looks like my soap box stuck to the bottom of my shoe

[PaulH]

Ernie,

I certainly love to have people talk more on combat for a change in this WC forum. But what they write is also related to WC though more on its distant past and on a more theoretical side. We need both - theory and application in balance.

Regards,

[KingMonkey]

Well that all seems fair enough on the face of it Paul but I simply dont feel that the pursuit of knowledge of the excrutiating minutia of past historical events is as valid as the pursuit of fighting skill in the context of a wing chun forum.

Where these two can co exist peacefully no problem I suppose, but I feel that the very much secondary goal should in no way be allowed to step on the toes of the far more important one (ie fighting) by way of fostering ill will, elliciting negative exchanges and encouraging people's ego's/allegiances to influence discussion.

[FIRE HAWK]

y

[Ernie]

paul
But what they write is also related to WC though more on its distant past and on a more theoretical side. We need both - theory and application in balance.
theory is nothing with out application and application has nothing to do with anyone else but your personal experience,
doesn't matter what position great master so in so slept in.
it's how your body adapts and expresses the information . and finding better ways to learn the skills .
but your right in a sense people sometimes need to belong to something bigger then themselves for security that's why we have cult's and gangs and linch mobs .
but combat on a individual level has nothing to do with reciting what is written down on some stones ,
hell hit some body in the head with the stones now that's useful
but to try and validate all your indivdual expressions to the restrictions of some one elses truth in the past is defenitly a trap
o.k, i'm done '' tapping out ''

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Alpha Dog
I thought you hated me, John. What gives?

Do I feel a group hug coming on or what?
Yeah, it's true; I hate you. :D

Group Chi Sao is always nice, but I'm not a grappler and don't advocate hugs in a martial context. :p

[John Weiland]

Hi Rene,

Originally posted by reneritchie
John,

In theory, I agree with you, but in practice, there's no way for a fraction of the community to sort real discussion of phoney claims from phoney discussion of real claims.

Still, the phoney claims get challenged and the phoney criticisms arise from malignancy or ignorance. If I stand up in a crowded forum and shout "fire," someone else can post a disclaimer and say, "No, there isn't." Much of what we're discussing as history is really just slightly beyond current events for many of the older practitioners who might remember when the first mass marketing propaganda was introduced on a susceptible public. We can all be scientists and cast a jaundiced eye upon unverified or verifiable claims. Falsehoods tend to eventually be shown to be so.

An proper example of Wing Chun legitimacy is Hendrik Santo's charter from his Sigung to uncover what isn't proper in the teaching of his family of Wing Chun. I would believe Hendrik's version of Cho family Wing Chun history and technique over most everyone else because he has documentation and proof of his contentions. Likewise in Yip Man Wing Chun, I would believe that Lok Yiu and Tsui Shun Ting are the authorities on what Yip Man taught or didn't teach, but even their stories can be checked against each other's.


So, if its the community that we're interested in, they're not served either way (they can just as easily see your sifu and sigung, who are well established, attacked maliciously, and not know the difference).

There is a process for historical verification (which includes the technical). It only needs to be applied to claims. To ensure quality of instruction, the technical needs to as correct as the history, including who has made changes to the art and a big Why. As we've often noted, Wing Chun is a system, not merely a collection of techniques.


In the end, we can only hope that the rational, intelligent elements will out, and that information shared will let these fractions of the community come to their own informed opinions. Will it work for everyone? Well, clearly not those that think Aliens assasinated Kennedy, the moon walk was staged in Navada, or anyone who watches the FOX network, but I submit their not the critical mass anyway, bless their when-animals-attacked-them little hearts.

Yeah. What you said. :D


Also, not to forget, that nature often takes care of the really bogus anyway. That particular kind of crazy can't stand its own weight and crumbles in on itself eventually. The 20 year old master of 300 systems trained in Tibetain Ninja Shaolin Temple, and operating out of momas-basement in futtbuck, nowhere is not long for the MA world.
All right. I am somewhat mollified. :D

Regards,

[rubthebuddha]

i think some people are missing the point regarding interest. if you're not interested in discussing the history and such, then don't bother participating in a thread about history. it's not a difficult concept.

[PaulH]

Just my personal opinion, I think they know that. What they are against is wasting other people's time, energy and focus. Especially those who invested a considerable time and efforts into WC's theories and non practical stuffs before and got themselves hurt badly in actual fights. Well, they learned their lessons the hard way. And I believe they wish others to avoid what they had gone through. Most of these men talked rough, but they really do care for people's welfare. WSL also talked at length on not to waste people's time in teaching WC. I know Ernie personally and he never holds any grudges against anyone but always more than willing and excited to help others to progress further along in their WC journey.


Regards,

[Alpha Dog]

Originally posted by John Weiland

Yeah, it's true; I hate you. :D

Group Chi Sao is always nice, but I'm not a grappler and don't advocate hugs in a martial context. :p

Grendelhead!

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Alpha Dog


Grendelhead!
You've let being appointed the new moderator go to your head. :p

Be nice to Grendel. His mother was....how to phrase this delicately....uh, let's just say, unnurturing. :D But it took Beowulf to put him in his place.

Pesky beekeepers.

Regards,

[Phenix]

"Truth, not subjective opinion, in that research must remain at the center of everyone's focus. It is important for any and all serious martial artists to seek truth in what they do. Anything short of truth represents illusion that can ultimately become a fatal weakness. Seeking the true roots of a system is nothing less than an extension of the search for ultimate truth in one's own Kung Fu. At no time should the pursuit of one's true origins be viewed as threatening. "


1. I certainly agree, but why is people attack me personally when I disagree and clearify about certain false claim which is not applied to my lineage?

2, I don't mind to release and discuss the full of my lineage research to the WCK community including the White Crane and Kuen Kuit.... which some in this forum has seen. Since there is nothing to hide and has lots of supporting back ground information.
But after those attacks.
Why bother to discuss?

So, I conclude there is no way to have a mature discussion in forum.

since not everyone is mature and sorry to say very large number of so called historians or sifu in WCK needs more education in Chinese history and culture background study and it is a fact.

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Phenix
"Truth, not subjective opinion, in that research must remain at the center of everyone's focus. It is important for any and all serious martial artists to seek truth in what they do. Anything short of truth represents illusion that can ultimately become a fatal weakness. Seeking the true roots of a system is nothing less than an extension of the search for ultimate truth in one's own Kung Fu. At no time should the pursuit of one's true origins be viewed as threatening. "


1. I certainly agree, but why is people attack me personally when I disagree and clearify about certain false claim which is not applied to my lineage?

I'm sorry you have been attacked by the trolls. The ad hominem nature of the attacks drew my concerns about the forum moderation from the beginning and I reported them to Sandman though it went on for too long. You have held up remarkably well and it would be a shame if someone of your stature in your family and knowledge of Wing Chun generally would stop trying to enlighten us. Please keep up the good work. :D Most of us appreciate your efforts.


2, I don't mind to release and discuss the full of my lineage research to the WCK community including the White Crane and Kuen Kuit.... which some in this forum has seen. Since there is nothing to hide and has lots of supporting back ground information.
But after those attacks.
Why bother to discuss?

So, I conclude there is no way to have a mature discussion in forum.

The information, perspective, and documentation you have is too important to lose. I'd like to see it safely in the hands of scholars if possible. Have you approached any universities with a Chinese history focus? Some grad student or professor in need of publishing might easily be convinced to run with it and put it all into print for the good of posterity.


since not everyone is mature and sorry to say very large number of so called historians or sifu in WCK needs more education in Chinese history and culture background study and it is a fact.
You're right again. There are too many historical discussions and not enough honest-to-goodness historical understanding and investigation. Wing Chun has been over commercialized to it and its proponents' detriment.

Regards,

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

All,

Sorry, I wasn't able to get to the forum for a couple of days. So please forgive the slow reply to many of your messages....

Well, it was interesting to let this thread run for a bit and see what cropped up....thanks to everybody who took the time and effort to post their opinions. As to everyone else...

900+ views on this thread, and only 18 votes in the poll. And one of those votes was mine. So much for democracy...but for those that voted, the general opinon seems to be "stay polite or leave it out completely"

I guess we'll try having some discussion of lineage/politics, and just hand out warnings and whatnot if people start getting obnoxious with each other. And if that doesn't work, we'll just keep it off of here.

If we're actually going to get into touchy subjects like this then POLITENESS is going to be key. That includes thinly veiled inferences. And there's going to have to be ZERO attacks on posters. Full attention would have to remain upon the lineage discussion, and not move to discussing the behaviour of the person posting. If we can actually do this in a mature fashion, then I'm all for it. Honestly, I prefer to take as hands off an approach to moderating on here as possible. I'd rather not delete any posts, or ban any users. Everyone should feel comfortable posting on here. If some guy from a total McWingChunDojo starts posting, let him figure out that he is in the wrong school on his own based on the difference between what he is learning and what he sees people talking about on here. Nobody needs someone else to yell at them that their school is a fraud.

One interesting thing is that since we went into "sudden death" mode, the core group (which aren't from any particular lineage, btw) that I belive to be the root of most of the problems on here have clammed up completely. Most didn't even get warnings. I guess that deep down inside they know who they are.

Anyway, let's see if this can be done.

[EnterTheWhip]

Lineage need not be mentioned when discussing Wing Chun. Sharing should be of the knowledge that each individual has learned himself/herself, not what has been established by one's lineage(that's available through other means). If people are truly interested in "sharing" and one recognizes another's post/comment as a truth, distinction of lineage to legitimize or deligitimize is not necessary. The truth as you see it, is the truth.

[rubthebuddha]

enterthewhip,

i dunno -- speaking of lineage CAN have some benefits. specifically, to illustrate the typical differences in emphasis. ken cheung's flavor will be different than sum nung's, whose will be different from william cheung's, whose will be different than leung ting's (can't make a list without including my sigung; t'would be rude ;)).

when we look at their teachings academically, this discussion can go on for ages without harm. however, when we attach values for the sake of ranking them, that is when people's panties get bunched up and feelings are hurt. pride takes over and stuff gets ugly from now on.

[yuanfen]

There are fakes in wing chun who drop names and make up their lineage and it is not a new phenomenon.

Mentioning who one really learned from has some value in understanding the person's perspective. But the more serious problem is that which matters most is how much good wing chun one has personally learned- without quoting one's sifu or saying that in WT, TWC OR our wc we do this in lieu of discussing substance.

Ultimately its your own understanding of wing chun is at stake when you use wing chun---neither lineage nor sifu will help you.
And one ought to be able to explain their own understanding.

The other things- history, name dropping, search for legitimacy,
chest thumping can be interesting if it does not become the main menu- which should be about comparing the similarities and differences in our understanding of the art IMHO....fwiw

[EnterTheWhip]

Without lineage specification, there are a myriad of observations and truths from which to share. With specification there are only a handful that we've heard about over and over from various sources. Which would you rather have?

[rubthebuddha]

Originally posted by EnterTheWhip
Which would you rather have?
:o
honestly?

better footwork.

in the long run, better kung fu and more knowledge. i love trivia like what we're talking about, and putting much of it into neat, organized boxes (saying this sifu and that sifu) is just how i think. i know the flaw with trying to compartmentalize everything, but i'm an american. compartmentalizing is like mom and apply pie. :)

[kj]

Originally posted by John Weiland, regarding Hendrik's documentation: The information, perspective, and documentation you have is too important to lose. I'd like to see it safely in the hands of scholars if possible. Have you approached any universities with a Chinese history focus? Some grad student or professor in need of publishing might easily be convinced to run with it and put it all into print for the good of posterity

John, Hendrik,

This is an excellent suggestion, worth pursuing if possible, IMHO.

Regards,
- kj

[rubthebuddha]

kj is spot on.

does anyone know if this has, in fact, been done? i know a lot of the masters are history buffs, but have any of them, or their students, done a proper thesis or dissertation about this, or other wing chun topics?

[yuanfen]

A small dissent- Hendrik is better off doing the writing himself rather than turning it over to an "academic". This means rough drafts and then getting a person to edit.

That way there will be something to chew on, review and comment.

[rubthebuddha]

i'll defer to the college professor on most of what he said :), but i like the benefit to having those who may not necessary be involved to go over it and ask some of those simple questions we always forget to answer in papers -- the little details we should cover early on.

i can see it now ...

objective reviewer: "David, this was a very well-written paper on the evolution of technique since the passing of Yip Man -- lots of examples and sources -- but I have one burning question: what the flying **** is wing chun?"

but yuanfen is right -- a wc person would be better, but i'd rather this be written by someone with some proper writing experience.

so, yuanfen, does your CV need any padding? :)

[yuanfen]

Rub the Buddha-
A CV is for the young uns who need to convince others as to who they are!

"WhenI was a young man courting the deans I played me a cv game- and when time came around they came my way..."
Redoing- September Song.

Buddhas just smile- without rubbing!They know who they are!

Academia has it's sharks and lazy ones too. Also even China hands in academia know little or atleast not enough about the martial arts.

If Hendrik writes rough drafts then gets them edited and then carefully circulate to trustworthy commentators (sounding boards)
that would be the way to go- so that he can retain control of his writings and materials. He does have very interesting materials in his hands and a very interesting thesis.

[rubthebuddha]

younguns, huh? jeesh. give a man tenure and he thinks he's a demigod. ;)

(sorry, i work at a uni; making fun of faculty comes naturally to me).

i agree with what you say. i just have a habit of letting a non-expert read my larger papers before i submit them, because they always ask those seemingly dumb questions that are, in actuality, just concerns because i left out something basic and very necessary -- like a definition of a rather key term.

besides, some buddhas just like to be rubbed. my head and tummy would be two of them. :D

[yuanfen]

younguns, huh? jeesh. give a man tenure and he thinks he's a demigod.
--------------------------------------------------------------
No it's just the last abode of a free man or woman.
And that too is a- changing.

[rubthebuddha]

Originally posted by yuanfen
No it's just the last abode of a free man or woman.
And that too is a- changing.
aye. for some of the faculty i know, a mute button is a good thing. but for many, this changing is nowhere near a good thing.