Mastering Kung Fu - A Review [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

anerlich

11-29-2003, 12:44 AM

I ordered it from Amazon on October 12; it arrived on November 24.

Paperback, glossy cover, 226 pages, large easily readable text, clear and precise drawings. Layout is similar to other books in the series, e.g. Mastering Ju Jitsu by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher.

The black and white photographs are of good, though not exceptional, quality; the photographs in "Mastering Ju Jitsu" are larger and clearer to my eye. This is hardly a major issue; the best books I have seen for learning a martial art are John Will's BJJ books, in which neither paper quality nor photographic quality are as good as they are in this book; but in the case of John Will's books, the photos capture perfectly the subject being discussed.

Many of the photographs appear to be of relatively junior and less technically adept (which is not to say poor) students; this is not bad either, indeed for me one of the most enjoyable and endearing aspects of Rene Ritchie's book on Yuen Kay-San Wing Chun was that the photographs of techniques were nearly all of Rene and his training partners doing the best they could (which was not at all bad, I hasten to add). Better this than a bunch of "venerable masters" - it also gives the prospective student more of a feeling that, "Yeah, I can do this too".

The historical material is presented with fine organisation and at an unprecedented level of detail. Also, the exposition of the principles of the HFY system are explained with clarity and in great detail. No other book has presented the theoretical underpinnings of any Wing Chun variant with such precision and in such depth. In that regard, it is indisputable that this book breaks new ground and sets a new standard. A good deal of interesting information on Chi Sim Wing Chun was also presented. All aspects of HFY theory (that is the right word) are presented in a highly organised and deeply detailed fashion. The technical aspects are explained with tight and precise writing; the discussions of more esoteric concepts perhaps occasionally tend to wander a little, but they by definition difficult to discuss.

The main premise of the book is that the fundamental principles of HFY, or "formula", allow the practitioner to produce an ideal "dimensional" defense and or offense, in terms of space, time and energy, which will, in precise physical and scientific terms, result in the most efficient way to neutralise the particular threat even in the rapid change and frenzied chaos that is hand to hand combat, and that training of the requisite quality and quantity will produce fighters that can perform this way at will against any adversary, trained in whatever system and whatever skill, no matter how superior their physical attributes may be.

Many may feel that reality is too chaotic (in the "chaos theory" sense) and humanity too varied and imperfect for such a proposition to hold in the real world. "Performance overrides precision" and other maxims proposed by other famed martial artists come to mind. But the book argues its case well, if not completely convincingly.

The other premise was that this formula was developed by the combined efforts of soldiers and Shaolin disciples several hundred years ago, was perfect then and remains so to this day, and was preserved in secret by only a few members of arcane societies. Others, without access to the complete system, who built on their limited knowledge through their own efforts or by blending with other systems, were doomed to watering down the "pure" system.

Even the systems of such WC ancestors as Leung Jan and Yip Man are seen as impure and demonstrably inferior, as matters of scientific fact since they do not implement the HFY "formula".

These outcomes seem anomalous in terms of the history and philosophy of science, where similar discoveries are made by independent researchers, and where continuous evolution or revolution leads to continuing refinement
and improvement over time, and where collaboration and visibility rather than secrecy lead to the most rapid improvements.

Also, the battlefields where various "formulae" have developed have changed over time; people such as W.E. Fairbairn and Rex Applegate had the ascendancy around WWII where H2H combat is concerned (their armies won, didn't they?) - and in modern times where wars are fought with high and low tech explosives and projectile weapons, tanks and air support (and hijacked airliners and car bombs), the H2H combat arena most people care about are urban environments, muggings, carjackings, brawls and home invasions.

In those arenas and in these times people such as Scott Sonnon, Tony Blauer and Geoff Thompson are arguably at the forefront. For whatever reason, the U.S. Army's H2H combat programs are now heavily BJJ based, something that even I, as an almost rabidly keen student of BJJ, find surprising.

Is a system developed on battlefields 300 odd years ago really superior for modern conditions to anything any of these more recent researchers in the field have come up with?

Perhaps those people need this book. Perhaps you do as well. I would recommend it to them in the highly unlikely event they sought my advice, as food for thought - and probably to hear their impressions, as unbiased professionals, working with law enforcement and military personnel, who the authors of the book claim as part of their target audience.

In essence the questions are: can a formula developed for dealing with battlefield adversaries 300 years ago in China still be ideal for citizenry in modern urban society, or for combat and law enforcement professionals?

Do the massive technological and societial changes, and the discoveries made between times, have zero impact on the effectiveness of the (now ancient) formula?

The phrase "paradigm shift" is used extensively in the book to describe the embrace of these ideas by the HFY trainee. "Act of faith" is IMO a more accurate term.

I do not state this pejoratively- any trainee in any skill that involves personal risk must start from a base of ignorance, and must place his or her faith in the instructor and the methodology, at least until the student's experience and increasing knowledge and understanding allow him or her to make sound judgements - yea or nay - on their own. I know I have done this with all the teachers I studied under - with generally excellent results, though also with one humungous failure.

The HFY propositions are counter-intuitive - not a bad thing, so are many of BJJ's basic strategies - go against the experiences of most, and sound too good to be true (which doesn't necessarily mean they aren't). As HFY practitioners have stated over and over, it is not possible to determine whether their proposals will
work or not without experiencing them for yourself. Without that experience, one must make judgements based on what experiences and knowledge one does have. If direct experience is not easily obtained (for someone like me living in Australia, it is not), or the arguments of the proponents not sufficiently convincing for that experience to be sought, the modern history of most martial arts, and the experiences of many, indicate that scepticism is a healthy attitude.

However, scepticism should never reject the possibility that the proposal could be true, at least in part. If this really flies when you run it up the flagpole, and better than anything else, yes please, I'd like some. The book argues its case very well and in great detail; the proof of the pudding is not therein, however.

The writers have elected to undertake a polemic and political approach in regard to other variants of Wing Chun Kung Fu, lumping them together as "Popular Wing Chun" and pointing out their alleged "shortcomings" at regular intervals. I could not avoid thinking of William Cheung and his "Traditional" and "Modified" versions of Wing Chun, and the thirty-odd years of negativity brought to the Wing Chun family as a result. I cannot see that doing the same thing in this case will end up with a markedly different result. The only non-HFY substyle left out of this treatment is Chi Sim, probably a wise plan since its leader, Andreas Hoffman, may have been rather less inclined to write the foreword to the book otherwise.

As with all generalisations, this one involves many inaccuracies, one being the usage of a low line tan sao in all "Popular" lineages. They're not all the same, chaps.

This attitude must raise questions in the minds of discerning readers about the objectivity of the presentation of the historical and technical information in the book.

Bruce Lee is portrayed as a worthy seeker after martial truth, ultimately failing due to his inability to access HFY's Wing Chun "formula". A somewhat strange attitude to arguably the most successful and influential martial artist of recent, perhaps any, times, probably an early influence on some more senior HFY practitioners today.

On page 47, the authors launch into a diatribe regarding other historians and internet users, for those in the know obviously aimed pretty squarely at recent authors of other popular books on Wing Chun, including the one that first brought Gee Sifu to the attention of the rest of the Wing Chun world, who have chosen scepticism where the HFY proposals are concerned. The inclusion of this piece of vituperation is unnecessary and IMO spoils an otherwise excellent book. The HFY family has had few qualms about using the internet for their own purposes. The reader is counselled that virtual style and Sifu bashing via the internet and criticism of other styles should not be tolerated, though apparently if a few of you band together and produce a book which bashes brother lineages, that is fine.

anerlich

11-29-2003, 12:46 AM

continued ...

Actions have consequences, to quote the authors, something the participants in the Cologne 1986 and New York 1996 incidents have had ample opportunity to reflect on. The latter resulted from internet trash talking, BTW. Take us not down this same road again, please.

As happened in those cases, most sensible practitioners will ignore these overtures, enjoy the book, maybe explore and incorporate some of its ideas, maybe attend a seminar, maybe take up HFY, or perhaps just continue with whatever they were doing.

The book explains early on that the style is based on "reality rather than theory", but then spends almost the entire rest of the book presenting theory, which it calls the "formula", in great, and excellent detail. Go figure.

Sportfighting is denigrated, with that philosophy of that prominent Wing Chun exponent, Gichin Funakoshi, used as an example as appeal to authority.

There is nothing wrong with promoting one's cause, but there is if you do it by trying to drag down your peers to get to the top. If HFY is as good as you believe, it should stand on its own. If you are different from other lineages, and have a superior moral standard via your Shaolin links, act that way and avoid the lineage bashing too many others have unfortunately indulged in.

Overall:

If this book was written purely to explain the history and principles of Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun, it would be almost an instant classic and would easily get four and a half stars out of five from me. The polemic stance of the authors and implicit and explicit denigration of other Kung Fu and Wing Chun systems, and those associated with them, means it gets no more than a pretty generous three and a half. Worth buying? Definitely. It is still one of the best Wing Chun books written to date. Just take a Valium or some Valerian when they get needlessly controversial.

BTW, HFY and TWC are NOT the same. There are superficial similarities in some areas, but even the parallel foot neutral stance and side neutral stance differ between the two lineages, from what I see in the pictures TWC's is narrower and the knees sunk deeper, and there are other minor postural differences. The forms are certainly different.

The book counsels its readers that there are far too many out there giving opinions on Wing Chun without qualification or suitable experience. FWIW, I have studied various martial arts since 1977, including Bac Fu Do Kung Fu, Xingyi and BaGua. I started TWC in 1989 under Sifu Rick Spain, and gained my instructor level (gold sash) in 1995 while our academy belonged to William Cheung's WWCKFA. I have been graded further since then and continue to train hard in both TWC and Machado Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, in which I hold the rank of blue belt. I've been injured, hurt, and taken beyond exhaustion. I am hardly "Master of Almightiness", but I believe I've paid enough dues to hold an opinion worth considering.

I hope this review gives you a clear picture of what the book is about. I encourage all to read it.

Andrew Nerlich, proud practitioner of Popular Wing Chun and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

Zhuge Liang

11-29-2003, 02:46 AM

Hi Andrew,

Excellent review. I'm sure those who haven't read the book yet will appreciate the effort. And for those who who have read it, your review should add a welcomed additional perspective to the book.

Regards,
Alan

11-29-2003, 05:35 AM

Wow Andrew, and thanks. A superb blend of objectivity and personal perspective, excellently written. This may be a new standard in Martial Arts book review.

I too would like to see other's objective reviews, in part because of - rather than in spite of - each's unique window of experiences and perspectives.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

yenhoi

11-29-2003, 06:50 AM

Ive only read the cover so far.

Looks pretty good so far.

:D

yuanfen

11-29-2003, 07:21 AM

Anerlich- Good and clear and independent review. Descriptively sound and analytically balanced. Well done!

saifa5k

11-29-2003, 09:17 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by anerlich
[B]continued ...

"Sportfighting is denigrated, with that philosophy of that prominent Wing Chun exponent, Gichin Funakoshi, used as an example as appeal to authority."

HI Andrew,
The above quote was the funniest thing I have read in a long time!

Great review.

Dave c

Phenix

11-29-2003, 09:55 AM

Hi Anerlich,

Great review!

some add on,

IMHO, If memory serve I have seen the "pole" somewhere from Non WCK lineage. may be some old chinese magazine had it also....

I agree on your comment such as:

"
The writers have elected to undertake a polemic and political approach in regard to other variants of Wing Chun Kung Fu, lumping them together as "Popular Wing Chun" and pointing out their alleged "shortcomings" at regular intervals. ....

Even the systems of such WC ancestors as Leung Jan and Yip Man are seen as impure and demonstrably inferior, as matters of scientific fact since they do not implement the HFY "formula"...

Bruce Lee is portrayed as a worthy seeker after martial truth, ultimately failing due to his inability to access HFY's Wing Chun "formula". A somewhat strange attitude to argue......."

Those writing seems to repeat and confirm the writers belief of thier superiority which started in the magazine article years ago.

I think every lineage "story" has thier birth right to be respected. HOwever,
IMHO, I think the writers are running extremly high risk by making claims...

1, what if those formulas of their connection to Shao Lin Chan was proven that it doesn't link to shao lin Chan? or the Chan reality of non dual?

2, when more and more evidents of the "popular WCK" shown in public that the reality is different then what they thought. then what happen? this book will serve as ghost that will haunt them in the future ?

certainly, it is admirable to published a book based on one's belief and I think the book can be better and serve higher positive purpose if the writers think twice about thier claim , don't make claim in shao lin Chan which they evidentally has no idea and experience about based on the evident in writing in the book, but focus on thier uniqueness instead of stepping on unknown and others which they have no idea about which will certainly shoot back.

I belive the existance of every lineage has a meaning and respectable. Thus, I am not attacking any lineages but critic the content of a book.

Ultimatewingchun

11-29-2003, 03:31 PM

Andrew Nerlich:

Fantastic review of the book !!! I now want very much to read it, if for no other reason (and there may turn out to be many reasons) - then to try and understand the "formula" that no one has been able to adequately explain IMO on this forum so far...

As regards the incident in New York City in 1996, and its implications for what might be dangerous about some of the denigrating languageand ideas used in the present book about other wing chun systems that don't use the "formula"...

as you probably know I was right in the middle of the 1996 affair here in New York... when, at that time, a certain Andrew Draheim of the Leung Ting/Emin Boztepe world...put a spy in my school - who found out that I was scheduled for double hernia surgery - and lo and behold - before you could say the words "cowardly opportunist", Draheim moves his school literally five feet away from my door, challenges me to a fight, calls me a coward for not accepting, calls William Cheung "a piece of sh#t " in front of my students - gets his head handed to him a week later and I get arrested and spend the next 8 months trying to fend off an assualt charge in court...

AND UNTIL YOU MADE YOUR INITIAL POST ON THIS THREAD...I
didn't know to this day that Draheim might have done what he did because of internet wars going on at that time - I never even knew how to use a computer until three years ago (2000)...so it wasn't me or any of my students doing the internet thing at that time...as I now look back at it I begin to realize it may have been Joe Grepo, who was doing administrative and organizational work for William Cheung at the time...Joe loved to talk trash over the internet, as I recall.

I'm not specifically blaming Joe for all of this, by the way - my point is that on reflection it is really easy for all kinds of mischief - including violent mischief - to get started when claims of superiority (ie. -the TWC way is the best way...the HFY formula is the best way, etc.) - when the next step is taken..."AND THEREFORE ALL OTHER WAYS ARE INFERIOR".

It's a fine line that has to be walked, I suppose - if one really believes that the system they do is the best (and hopefully that belief comes from serious logic, study and experience) - if one really believes that... then fine - say it...

but the trick is to say it in a way that doesn't denigrate other people into wanting to "show you how wrong you are" by coming after you with out-of-control violence.

Perhaps the answer could someday be an all-wing chun yearly tournamant somewhere, somehow....where actions will speak infinitely louder than words about who and what is the best...

but actions performed in a controlled atmosphere where good-sportsmanship, professionalism and mutual respect is the order of the day.

reneritchie

11-29-2003, 04:51 PM

Andrew - Great review. The VTM continues to raise the bar in some areas, and at least to drive the discussion in others.

Phoenix - I think I know the articles you mean. One was New Martial Hero, the other Wulin. I think there was an English article too a few years back. I'll catch you offlist.

Victor - It was on Rec.Martial.Arts, part of USENET, and old-style "board" type system. I recall most TWC (Andrew, Marty, etc.) and most WT people (Andrew, Mike, etc.) being quite civilized and polite. Draheim himself, however, was also posting on RMA directly, and his posts were usually part of less friendly discussions. I don't remember Joe posting at the time. It was *the* internet MA soap opera for a while there.

anerlich

11-29-2003, 07:59 PM

Thanks, guys.

Victor, don't worry, I was there right at the start of all the stuff with Draheim on rec.m-a. He started it with a set of long, insulting and ridiculous monologues. Guys like Mike Peter and Rick Shank from WT were put in very difficult positions by him trying to keep the "debate" on some track of sanity. Draheim was rounded on not only by Marty and myself, but the unnvolved who saw the absurdity of his actions. Frankly, I think the outcome was inevitable.

Nevertheless, it shows the folly of taking such a path. Which I hope the writers of the book and their students will heed lest anything similar happen. As they said themselves in the book, "actions have consequences".

To address your other point, the problems come IMO not when people say "my style is pure and sophisticated and great", but say "everything all these other people do is inferior, mine is the only true way, and because you don't follow the true and pure way you have no business to disagree." Though in Draheim's case it was phrased more like "TWC is utter crap and William Cheung is a big fraud."

Ultimatewingchun

11-30-2003, 02:55 PM

Andrew, Rene:

Thanks for bringing me up to speed on what was going on in those days...by the time I was dragged into it the game was obviously long afoot.

I am looking forward to buying the HFY book and delving into the "formula". How do I go about purchasing it?

duende

11-30-2003, 03:58 PM

Anerlich,

I'm glad you enjoyed your copy of Mastering KF. I had a feeling that once you read it, that you might be happy with it's depth of details and knowledge shared.

It's unfortunate that you found certain areas polemic and political. As that was not the intent of the book.

Anyways... good reading to you, and who knows, maybe you'll try out the WC formula.

Sifu Parlati,

I think Amazon.com has copies for $13... (lowest price I've seen)

anerlich

11-30-2003, 04:29 PM

"I'm glad you enjoyed your copy of Mastering KF. I had a feeling that once you read it, that you might be happy with it's depth of details and knowledge shared."

Indeed I am. As I said, the best I've ever seen where WC is concerned.

"It's unfortunate that you found certain areas polemic and political. As that was not the intent of the book."

I agree it's unfortunate. If that were not [a hopefully and apparently minor part of] the intent, than that stuff should not have been in there, as it serves no possible more productive purpose that I can see.

"Anyways... good reading to you, and who knows, maybe you'll try out the WC formula."

I think calling it the "HFY formula" is more accurate. Other arts and WC subsystems have their own formulae, whether the authors of the book agree or not. Xingyi and Bagua have formulae based on numeric entities, on a Taoist rather than Ch'an set of principles. 36 and 108 are prominent numbers is taiji, to name just one art, as well as HFY.

Some formulae may not be as intricate or multifaceted as that of the book, but size and complexity do not necessarily correlate to effectiveness or correctness (nor do they necessarily rule them out, though). One man's paradigm will always be another's anathema in this area. A sensible person will try to appreciate the reasoning of others, however.

Victor, get it from Amazon.com. Their ordering procedure is straightforward, and they have always been prompt and reliable in my experience. Alternatively the VT Museum may sell copies directly, though you'd need someone from there to confirm that.

12-01-2003, 06:34 AM

Andrew, with some minor adjustment for audience (or not), your review would make an excellent contribution to Amazon.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

1renox

12-01-2003, 02:45 PM

anerlich,

That was a well rounded, well written review. Thanks for your efforts!!

anerlich

12-01-2003, 05:08 PM

Kathy Jo

I was actually thinking of posting an abbreviated one there. Maybe today or tomorrow.

anerlich

12-01-2003, 08:10 PM

I have posted a much shorter review at amazon.com.

passing_through

12-03-2003, 03:14 PM

Anerlich,

Good review. Thanks for the honest, direct feedback. Considering the ups and downs in the past, your review was very articulate and well presented.

FWIW, in response to Even the systems of such WC ancestors as Leung Jan and Yip Man are seen as impure and demonstrably inferior, as matters of scientific fact since they do not implement the HFY "formula"...

The argument of impure is valid if it can be established that HFY is the original form of Wing Chun. This is the current position of the VTM given the information collected to date. This could change in the future based on new information.

As for "demonstrably inferior" I believe the thrust of the book was more in the vein of "demonstrably inefficient" - which can be demonstrated as HFY implements a formula to measure efficiency. The Ip Man lineage method for measuring efficiency = ?.

I think calling it the "HFY formula" is more accurate

For people that are not in the HFY lineage, it makes sense to call it the "HFY Formula". However, would you grant that the members of the HFY lineage, in referring to their own concept, are fully within their right to call their formula "The Wing Chun Formula"?

And, as always, the "hate-ahs" gotta come out swinging, ya?

Hendrik with: IMHO, If memory serve I have seen the "pole" somewhere from Non WCK lineage. may be some old chinese magazine had it also....

(and then concludes with I belive the existance of every lineage has a meaning and respectable. Thus, I am not attacking any lineages but critic the content of a book... come on Hendrik, you a hate-ah, playa' so just come on out and admit it. You can't denigrate the information on HFY in the book without also denigrating the lineage).

Rene with: Phoenix - I think I know the articles you mean. One was New Martial Hero, the other Wulin. I think there was an English article too a few years back. I'll catch you offlist.

(for a political to come out an make such a statement... trying to draw people into an altercation? or revealing your true nature?)

FYI, the phrase "Hung Mun Saat Gwan, Hei Yin Chan" is not unique to HFY. The phrase and the Kuen Kuit are actually kinda common in the Southern systems of kung fu. The difference is in the experience - the training and the application. Take the phrase "Tan Sau" for example. Lots of Wing Chun lineage make use of the phrase - but looking at the training and application, there's a world of difference. The Lin Kuen (practice fist skills) is different. In the HFY lineage, rather than Lin Kuen, we Sau Faat (cultivate reality). Even in this difference of phrase is differnet thinking, different experience (note I didn't say superior). So, while there may be articles out, what's the experience behind the information? We all have taan/bong/fuk - what's the experience that supports it? Looking only at postures is considered "skin and bones" type thinking (a Lin Kuen approach). Looking at the experience "marrow" type thinking (a Sau Faat approach).

Jeremy R.

Ultimatewingchun

12-03-2003, 04:45 PM

This latest post by whoever passingthrough is is just too over the top, - once again - by someone in the HFY crowd...so it's time for the gloves to come off...I was going to wait until after reading the book before going public with this...but...

THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN THE HFY FORMULA...that needs to be addressed right now.

I've been watching the first friendship seminar tape wherein at one point Garrett Gee is in a left neutral side stance vs. Benny Meng's right front stance (and Benny is going to throw a straight right hand at Gee's face)....wherein Gee explains that according to the HFY formula he (Gee) should turn into a right neutral side stance so that his lead hand (Gee's right) would be closer to Meng's face as a strike while Gee uses a left tan sao to block/deflect Men's right hand straight lead punch....

This rationale only takes into account a few trees and ERRONEOUSLY dismisses the rest of the forest..because since Gee is now moving into Meng's "open side" he (Gee) is now in great jeopardy of being KNOCKED OUT by Meng's rear cross - at the very moment that Gee is attempting to land his first blow with his right hand. (Instead of immediately throwing the rear cross after the right hand lead - Meng's left hand is just dangling down by his side)...

The TWC way of going to the blindside of Meng by starting out in a left neutral stance is a far superior strategy than the one Gee proposes - as the possible rear cross should be taken into consideration as part of ANYONE'S FORMULA in such a scenario...it is much easier to deal with the situation from the blindside right neutral side (which is the "parallel-arm" position - to use TWC parlance) as opposed to the "cross-arm" position that Gee advocates..

because Meng's own lead right leg being inside and the TWC man's left leg being to Meng's outside makes it twice as hard for Meng to land the rear cross then in the scenario Gee proposes..(because Meng's left is now too far away)...

and as a final thought the TWC man should pak-cheun Meng's punch while traveling north-west (meaning that the TWC guy slap blocks with his left and immediately slides his right biu sao out from underneath his own left elbow area while stepping up and toward Men'g right flank))... and hitting Meng with his left while being in perfect positon to block out Meng's rear cross with the cheun sao (the TWC man's right hand).

Phenix

12-03-2003, 04:48 PM

FWIW, in response to Even the systems of such WC ancestors as Leung Jan and Yip Man are seen as impure and demonstrably inferior, as matters of scientific fact since they do not implement the HFY "formula"...

The argument of impure is valid if it can be established that HFY is the original form of Wing Chun. This is the current position of the VTM given the information collected to date. This could change in the future based on new information. ----- J

WOW. Great research.

All red boat WCK ancestors and WCK are "guilty" until proven "innocent" by VTM.

anerlich

12-03-2003, 05:03 PM

canglong

12-03-2003, 06:38 PM

I think calling it the "HFY formula" is more accurate If I might say in addition to what has also been stated the formula is derived from the Weng Chun Tong.
Mechanical efficiency alone does not guarantee combat effectiveness. No, but the alternative is less mechanical effeciency and still varied human application. To eliminate the mechanical deficiencies is to increase the possibility of effectiveness. By allowing for complete focus on the only possible short coming left human error of understanding and application.

As a side note Anerlich I thought your review was objective to the point and well written.

planetwc

12-03-2003, 06:41 PM

So, why isn't HFY Weng Chun rather than Wing Chun?

Originally posted by canglong
If I might say in addition to what has also been stated the formula is derived from the Weng Chun Tong.

anerlich

12-03-2003, 08:24 PM

If I might say in addition to what has also been stated the formula is derived from the Weng Chun Tong.

Planet WC's question is a pertinent one, and that addition does not change my desire that it still be called the "HFY formula" for the reasons already given.

To eliminate the mechanical deficiencies is to increase the possibility of effectiveness.

I can agree with that, I note you did not say "guarantee", only "increase the possibility", which is appropriate. Most practitioners of soft arts like kung fu or jiu jitsu seek efficiency, and some, such as ROSS, define their systems for doing this with quite sophisticated and scientifically based methodologies. There are many worthy paradigms - maybe one "paradigm shift" is not enough if you want to see the sum of unadorned reality.

My review did not dispute that the book stated its case on the physical underpinnings of the system very well. I still maintain that it is an act of faith that following it in totality will guarantee victory over any opponent using any (presumably other) system (what if one HFY guy fights another HFY guy? Mutually assured destruction?), no matter how much stronger or faster.

The reason IMO that HFY is different to other WC is not that it has structure or methodology, the "formula", but its claim that the formula is complete, perfect, and invincible. If this cannot be determined empirically - and I don't see how it can short of winning both Pride and the K1 ten years running - than you have to take it on faith.

Cna you actually alway do the One Right Thing at the right instant to deal with whatever the opponent does in the frenzied chaos of a violent attack as the book imples, or is it really just a corollary of Zeno's Paradox, whereas in reality Achilles always overtakes the tortoise, and the practitioners of the Ultimate Shaolin Combat System still get their perfect defense/offense passed and their clocks cleaned every now and then? As the book says, discussing it is useless, it has to be experienced. And your experience may be different from mine.

duende

12-03-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by anerlich

The reason IMO that HFY is different to other WC is not that it has structure or methodology, the "formula", but its claim that the formula is complete, perfect, and invincible. If this cannot be determined empirically - and I don't see how it can short of winning both Pride and the K1 ten years running - than you have to take it on faith.

Anerlich,

If a system maintains it's logic flow through-out then it is considered a valid, or perfect system. I think the usage of the term invincible comes from you

Technically speaking a "system" as derrived from "system's theory" will have a consistent logic flow in every aspect. Also this logic flow can be followed in both large scale overviews, and in the fine details. Think fractal theory....

I find this very attractive personally due to my own background in the philosophy of organicism in the arts.

I think there is a trend these days to round up and borrow techniques from a variety of MA sources and combine them into a group an then deem them a "system" While this may be considered beneficial to some... in my mind it is a very dangerous thing to do.

Consider the potential contradictions in logic flow found in many so called "systems" (ie. low tan sau in SNT, raised tan sau in wooden dummy.... chi sau as a learning tool, not as a fighting tool etc...). Then consider the even greater potential conflicts when you combine techniques from a multitude of "systems"

You very well could be programming your body's muscle memory with contradicting code...

And on a final note... imo... sports events like pride and K1 are not a valid measure of a fighting system. While they obviously bring out alot of excellant incredible fighters/athletes, the outcome of any test there would be compromised due to it's subjectivity to all the rules/regulations. For me the ultimate test of a fighting system would have to be based on it's efficiency using only the rules in the physics of time and space. Sorry to get all scientific on you, but that is all I could ever put faith in.

Alex

Chango

12-04-2003, 12:06 AM

Parlati Sifu,

<clip> This latest post by whoever passingthrough is is just too over the top, - once again - by someone in the HFY crowd...so it's time for the gloves to come off...I was going to wait until after reading the book before going public with this...but...

--- You might find the answer there?!!

<clip> The TWC way of going to the blindside of Meng by starting out in a left neutral stance is a far superior strategy than the one Gee proposes - as the possible rear cross should be taken into consideration as part of ANYONE'S FORMULA in such a scenario...it is much easier to deal with the situation from the blindside right neutral side (which is the "parallel-arm" position - to use TWC parlance) as opposed to the "cross-arm" position that Gee advocates..

--- You really should have read the book before posting this one. The HFY system has an quite detailed "concept based" approach to address what you reffer to as a "cross arm position." It is very clear that your video short has been taken out of context. We take this fact along with the fact that you do not have enough information on HFY strategy to make this call. It only proves once again that a book or a video is not the proper media for learning kung fu in it's true since.

<clip> and as a final thought the TWC man should pak-cheun Meng's punch while traveling north-west (meaning that the TWC guy slap blocks with his left and immediately slides his right biu sao out from underneath his own left elbow area while stepping up and toward Men'g right flank))... and hitting Meng with his left while being in perfect positon to block out Meng's rear cross with the cheun sao (the TWC man's right hand).

---I don't doubt the fact that your method as explained would or would not work. However I would just raise the question of supporting every detail with "concept" as well as challenging it with the question of being the "most efficient" way and last but not least how can you keep it consistant from person to person let alone from generation to generation. To put it quite simple the HFY system has a formula that AMONG OTHER THINGS it funtions in supplying at the least these three critical aspects.

I hope after you read the book you can do a valid judgment of what is being presented (in the book). Once again it would only be in the context of the book and your video footage. I really hope one day you can experience HFY in person where your questions and sometimes assuptions can be put into context. At that point you will not have to assume on some things. I really think you would be pleased with the information contained in HFY.

Chango (SGS) :cool:

reneritchie

12-04-2003, 08:20 AM

Jeremy - don't get your knickers in a twist, if the HFY pole uses generic southern fist terminology, then pre-existing material documenting that terminology would only re-enforce the accuracy of that assertion (that indeed it does use generic southern fist terminology, much as it uses generic wing chun terminology for the fists).

If the terminology is not so generic, but is indeed rather distinct and unique to another specific system, then it still provides a lead for ethical and professional research into the possible connections to or derivations from/of HFY pole, if not HFY in general. I'd think the VTM, given its previously stated aims and open-minded willingness to always re-evaluate their theories based on the most up to date information available, would welcome this.

Anerlich - very reasoned and logical, as always. I emailed you a link on modern RBSD, please let me know if you received it.

reneritchie

12-04-2003, 08:47 AM

Alex - Very good and interesting points. While MMA is trendy, many do seem to combine MA in a jumbled fashion, some techniques here, some there, without a single unifying strategy behind them (others, perhaps, do have this harmonious melding).

System is a confusing word. There are systems for doing and systems for teaching others how to do, and systems for learning from a teacher.

WRT things like consistency in logic, I think this is interesting as well, but something in my experience more of an ideal (like a perfect world) then something reality often allows (life in some sense is a paradox by default).

WRT things like Tan Sao height, IMHO, these are marvelous examples of the logic behind WCK. Rather than a single, restrictive pose for a movement (a rigid snapshot of what should be a fluid video), WCK measures give a small range of ideal implementation, allowing the circumstance of the moment to lock in the 'perfect' motion path for the moment (a fuzzy-logic engine, as I've said several times, much like that which allows a cruise missile to successfully hit targets conventional 'fixed' guidence never could). If you manage to stay within the measures, you optimize efficiency. Of course, in the real world, with ambush, winter conditions, limits of time and space (no limbic teleportation), even something just outside the measures, perhaps not optimal but enough to get the job done, beats being punched in the face.

I do agree with Anerlich, however, in that just like the old days where claims made were proven on the raise platform of the Loi Toi, nowadays, Pride and K1 and the like are the available medium. I think many would *love* to see a WCK person of any flavor excel within the ring or cage, as wrestling, bjj, boxing, thai, and even karate have done to some extent.

CarlDouglas108

12-04-2003, 08:51 AM

Sifu Parlati>THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN THE HFY FORMULA...that needs to be addressed right now.

Who are you suggesting should address it? how can you call HFY out on something you have only witnessed on video, you haven't even taken the time to purchase the book but yet you critique it?.

reneritchie>Jeremy - don't get your knickers in a twist,

It looks like Sisuk Jeremy made a valid point, you seem to do allot of pot stirring but deny it when called out on it?.

Regards

CD

reneritchie

12-04-2003, 09:00 AM

I'm actually remarkably polite and constrained and go out of my way to be generous and not bring up factual points which while legitimate, would be overly controversial, but comments like that don't make it seem very appreciated. :p

passing_through

12-04-2003, 09:45 AM

The argument of impure is valid if it can be established that HFY is the original form of Wing Chun.

I can agree with that. Whether the connotations of the word "impure" are more appropriate than those of "improved", "evolved", or "progressive" is something every reader must decide for him/herself.

Agreed. I think this is a "hot-button" topic - people seem to get very emotional and defensive over one word rather than try to see the meaning that is being communicated. And it is worth remembering that the people writing are also people - they're not always going to phrase something such that it appeals to all people, everywhere, at all times.

As for "demonstrably inferior" I believe the thrust of the book was more in the vein of "demonstrably inefficient" - which can be demonstrated as HFY implements a formula to measure efficiency. The Ip Man lineage method for measuring efficiency = ?.

HFY's employment of a formula to measure efficiency says nothing other than that HFY employs a formula to measure efficiency. It says nothing about whether other systems are more or less efficient

Granted.

unless you are going to measure them side by side using IMPARTIAL, NOT POLEMIC (note emphasis, just in case you missed it) experimenters.

Also granted.

Measurement is better than not measuring in the quest for continuous improvement. But the book seems to indicate that the formula is perfect and requires no improvement (nothing added, nothing taken away), so the continuous improvement process and the associated measurement must be unnecessary.

Not necessarily. For the system, the improvement process and measurement is unnecessary - but for practitioners, improvement and measurement is necessary to know how close you've come to the goal. This is what we call the "human factor". You can have a perfect system but if the person operating it isn't perfect, the application of the system is not perfect - which falls on the person, not the system.

skilled people continue to to get kicked in the head and nailed by left hooks every day.

I think that goes back to the human factor.

Mechanical efficiency alone does not guarantee combat effectiveness.

Completely agreed! I don't think anyone is putting that idea forward.

"efficiency is anything that scores".

And would you grant that using that definition makes it rather difficult to measure efficiency objectively? Using that definition, if I score, I'm more efficient - which then would seem to suggest that being the biggest, strongest, fastest is the most efficient. Can you maintain that level of efficiency all your life? As you get older, smaller, slower, weaker you're fighting skill goes down and your efficiency goes down. How does this definition explain some of the older martial arts masters being able to trash their juniors?

The system must, to be truly great, stand on its own history and principles, rather than on its perceptions of flaws with others. Readers should be able to make the decision for themselves without having to be pushed.

Also agreed. Personally, I'm not much for doing comparisons - I state what I have to state. I only get into it with people they slight what they don't first understand. See for yourself and then dismiss it, no problems from me. But dismiss a straw man... that irks me.

However, would you grant that, in establishing a separate identity - in a martial arts community where people use the same terms with different experience behind it - some comparison is necessary? "Taan Sau like this" (HFY POV)... "We do it that way too" (another Wing Chun person)... "No, you don't - you're hand is lower which has this consequence" (HFY POV)... "Arrogant bastage!" (another Wing Chun person) - simplified to the extreme but you get the gist of my meaning? Lots of Wing Chun people use the same terms with entirely different meaning behind them - when assumptions (on all sides) are made, things get ugly. For me, I generally assume a person didn't state precisely what they mean to I try to get to the heart of what they're trying to say (some people have a track record of negativity so I have a certain view of them, too).

If discussing with those outside HFY, it might come across as condescending and a denial that other valid approaches exist within WC. And I'm sure you're not implying that - are you?

Certainly worth considering - taking the context of the audience into account. As for me, I think all Wing Chun is valid but the question comes to what degree of efficiency. In what context can I do "this" or "that" as expressed by one lineage or another. I think it's only to the betterment of the art itself (and for us as practitioners individually) to experience what everyone has to say/do in the Gong Wu (martial arts world). How else to find out if what we do is right for us?

You can't denigrate the information on HFY in the book without also denigrating the lineage

The authors of the book IMO did their share of lineage denigration, expecting others not to shoot back is foolish.

I wasn't taking exception to the denigration - it was the fact that he stated he wasn't doing it, after doing it. Don't spit in my eye and tell me it's raining. We all live with the consequences of our actions. That's life.

I appreciate the thought that went into your post.

Likewise.

Jeremy R.

passing_through

12-04-2003, 09:47 AM

The argument of impure is valid if it can be established that HFY is the original form of Wing Chun. This is the current position of the VTM given the information collected to date. This could change in the future based on new information.

All red boat WCK ancestors and WCK are "guilty" until proven "innocent" by VTM.

No, that's not what was stated. The current working model of the VTM is basically that HFY is the origin of Wing Chun that uses SNT/CK/BJ forms. Nothing about guilty or innocent – (as an aside: guilty of what? innocent of what?). As for "proven" "by the VTM" - this is the VTM's model, so yes. Should the VTM espouse a view that it has not researched? With the inclusion of new information, that model can change. Even in Mastering Kung Fu, the history chapters are far more brief that was desirable but a harmony between the authors and the publisher had to be found. The original text was over 350 pages before pictures. At one point the authors suggested doing two books - one history and one on HFY - but that didn't fit with the design of the "Mastering" series. Overall, everyone is very pleased with how Mastering Kung Fu turned out. With the publishing of this book there is now a place from which to begin discussion on the VTM's theory and more research can be encouraged by more people. Snide comments and hurt pride do nothing to add to the discussion.

Jeremy R.

passing_through

12-04-2003, 09:48 AM

David:

why isn't HFY Weng Chun rather than Wing Chun?

This gets into the oral history of the HFY lineage: After the destruction of the Shaolin Temple and its Weng Chun Tong, the character of Wing used for this new art was changed from "Weng" meaning "always, perpetual, or everlasting" to "Wing" meaning "to recite, sing, praise, or chant." Chan Buddhism is based on oral communication to pass on its teachings. The character "Chun" meaning "spring, a time of new growth", stayed the same. The Han nation was seen by many as the spring of Chinese culture. By changing the characters, the Ming loyalists were reminded to pass on the tradition and secrets orally while working to rebuild the Ming government. The Chinese word "Yim" means "to prohibit or secret". By adding Yim to Wing Chun, the meaning was "to be discrete, secret, and pass on the revolutionary art orally". To insure that the art was not abused or to fall into the wrong hands, it was never documented.

Jeremy R.

passing_through

12-04-2003, 09:50 AM

Rene,

My knickers aren't in a twist. I don't appreciate the insinuation (HFY pole is nothing worth noting in the least and possibly ripped off of another style at worst), started by Hendrik and encouraged by you. Why not send him a PM if you want to share information privately with him? I can only surmise that you made a public comment in order to show others up. Given the heat on this topic (and your attempted chastisement of me), I presume that the others you wish to show up is the VTM and anyone affiliated with it.

Regardless of what I think personally, you're right about more information being better. Why not share the information you have publicly? Why just send it to Hendrik, privately? As an open-minded individual, honestly looking into the history of Wing Chun, the onus is on you to make sure all the players have equal access to information. To do otherwise is to take sides, something you profess to not do. Shouldn't you be a shining example of the moral standards you expect of others? Or is it a case of “do as I say, not as I do?”

I'm actually remarkably polite and constrained and go out of my way to be generous and not bring up factual points which while legitimate, would be overly controversial, but comments like that don't make it seem very appreciated.

Ah – so, you live by your avowed principles and should be appreciated for it? Should we praise a cat for being a cat?

Jeremy R.

Phenix

12-04-2003, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by passing_through

All red boat WCK ancestors and WCK are "guilty" until proven "innocent" by VTM.

No, that's not what was stated.

The current working model of the VTM is basically that HFY is the origin of Wing Chun that uses SNT/CK/BJ forms.

Jeremy R.

ALL red boat WCK ancestors and WCKlineages are "not origin" until proven "origin" by VTM.

crimsonking

12-04-2003, 10:56 AM

Excellent review anerlich - thanks.

IMO anerlich has done more in one for the reputation of HFY in one post than all the HFY propaganda put together! In fact, i'm now even considering picking up a copy of the book...

duende

12-04-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
This latest post by whoever passingthrough is is just too over the top, - once again - by someone in the HFY crowd...so it's time for the gloves to come off...I was going to wait until after reading the book before going public with this...but...

THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN THE HFY FORMULA...that needs to be addressed right now.

I've been watching the first friendship seminar tape wherein at one point Garrett Gee is in a left neutral side stance vs. Benny Meng's right front stance (and Benny is going to throw a straight right hand at Gee's face)....wherein Gee explains that according to the HFY formula he (Gee) should turn into a right neutral side stance so that his lead hand (Gee's right) would be closer to Meng's face as a strike while Gee uses a left tan sao to block/deflect Men's right hand straight lead punch....

This rationale only takes into account a few trees and ERRONEOUSLY dismisses the rest of the forest..because since Gee is now moving into Meng's "open side" he (Gee) is now in great jeopardy of being KNOCKED OUT by Meng's rear cross - at the very moment that Gee is attempting to land his first blow with his right hand. (Instead of immediately throwing the rear cross after the right hand lead - Meng's left hand is just dangling down by his side)...

The TWC way of going to the blindside of Meng by starting out in a left neutral stance is a far superior strategy than the one Gee proposes - as the possible rear cross should be taken into consideration as part of ANYONE'S FORMULA in such a scenario...it is much easier to deal with the situation from the blindside right neutral side (which is the "parallel-arm" position - to use TWC parlance) as opposed to the "cross-arm" position that Gee advocates..

because Meng's own lead right leg being inside and the TWC man's left leg being to Meng's outside makes it twice as hard for Meng to land the rear cross then in the scenario Gee proposes..(because Meng's left is now too far away)...

and as a final thought the TWC man should pak-cheun Meng's punch while traveling north-west (meaning that the TWC guy slap blocks with his left and immediately slides his right biu sao out from underneath his own left elbow area while stepping up and toward Men'g right flank))... and hitting Meng with his left while being in perfect positon to block out Meng's rear cross with the cheun sao (the TWC man's right hand).

Sifu Parlati,

Actually... there is just a whole in your understanding. Our whole formula is based on time and space. The advantage we can maintain by veing aware of our gates and structural/temporal advantages therein. Your post also deals with our concepts of deui ying jeui ying... but that's a whole other thread.

1. A rear cross from Sifu Meng would have more space to travel than Sifu's strike, and therfore require much more time.

If you think a rear cross is going to have any power once your forward strike has been absorbed and redirected by a tan and you've just taken a direct strike to the face... you're kidding yourself.

BUT!!! regardless of all this... The superior positioning by SIfu would allow him more than the sufficient time after the tan to go forward into Sifu Meng's center, biu your rear-cross and at the same time lop gang Sifu Meng with Sifu Gee's left arm controlling Sifu Meng structure via his left arm/hand controlling Sifu Meng's neck. Sifu Gee's right biu would then turn into a control or pull for the lop.

There are many many techniques.... but it is obvious that you are not aware of the usage of dimensional space in HFY.

In your scenario, it looks like you got simultaneous defense and defense... and then you attack???? To me, it looks like a long way to a short place.... like you're chasing after your opponents arms... Where's the effeiciency in that??? I agree with your assessment of the footwork advantage. That is clear. But now more than ever I can see that direct hands-on communication is the only way you'll ever "get" the formula.

Alex

taltos

12-04-2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by Phenix
All red boat WCK ancestors and WCK are "guilty" until proven "innocent" by VTM.

ALL red boat WCK ancestors and WCKlineages are "not origin" until proven "origin" by VTM.

Again, it appears that what my Sisuk said is being misinterpreted and/or misrepresented.

What he said was "The current working model of the VTM is basically that HFY is the origin of Wing Chun that uses SNT/CK/BJ forms." And "With the inclusion of new information, that model can change."

One thing that I don't understand is that if we replace VTM with anyone's name, there is no issue. If Jeremy said, "My current working model is that HFY is the origin of Wing Chun that uses SNT/CK/BJ forms. With the inclusion of new information, that model can change," then there's no harm, no foul. Everyone has an opinion, usually based on their own experiences and information that they have been exposed to. The VTM has not taken the stance that HFY is the be all, end all original penultimate grandfather art. Their stance seems to be (I won't presume to speak for them) that, based on the experiences of VTM members and the information that VTM members have been exposed to thus far, HFY appears to be the original system that utilized the SNT/CK/BJ forms that WC recognizes today as the foundational forms. If they get information that proves otherwise, it will modify their shared experience, and thus their working model, accordingly.

Jeremy even stated "I think all Wing Chun is valid." So what if to him it's just a measure of efficiency and he happens to identify with the efficiency offered by HFY? How is that different than anyone else?

There is enough bickering in the WC world without putting words into people's mouths and assigning erroneous stances and quotes to them. We all do just fine on our own to keep squabbling.

-Levi

passing_through

12-04-2003, 11:58 AM

ALL red boat WCK ancestors and WCKlineages are "not origin" until proven "origin" by VTM.

What do you mean by "not origin"? Not original? There seems to be a language gap here.

Origin (from webster.com)

1 : ANCESTRY, PARENTAGE
2 a : rise, beginning, or derivation from a source b : the point at which something begins or rises or from which it derives <the origin of the custom is forgotten>; also : something that creates, causes, or gives rise to another <this spring is the origin of the brook>
3 : the more fixed, central, or larger attachment of a muscle
4 : the intersection of coordinate axes
synonyms ORIGIN, SOURCE, INCEPTION, ROOT mean the point at which something begins its course or existence.

ORIGIN applies to the things or persons from which something is ultimately derived and often to the causes operating before the thing itself comes into being <an investigation into the origin of baseball>.

The Red Boat is the point of origin (in this sense) for all Wing Chun as we know it today - except Chi Sim, Hung Fa Yi, and possibly Cho Ga (but that remains to be researched from the VTM’s point of view).

SOURCE applies more often to the point where something springs into being <the source of the Nile> <the source of recurrent trouble>.

The Southern Shaolin seems to be point of origin (in this sense) of Wing Chun as two lineages appear to date back to that timeframe - from VTM research to date.

INCEPTION stresses the beginning of something without implying causes <the business has been a success since its inception>.

The Southern Shaolin seems to be the point of origin (in this sense) of Wing Chun as two lineages appear to date back to that timeframe - from VTM research to date.

ROOT suggests a first, ultimate, or fundamental source often not easily discerned <the real root of the violence>.

The point of origin (in this sense) of Wing Chun is still under investigation. For HFY, we know the point of origin in this sense. Other questions remain: What was the main training modality in the Southern Shaolin for Chan, martial arts and health? Were there other, outside/non-Shaolin influences? What (precisely) did the military bring to the table? The VTM has some general information but, considering that the Southern Shaolin was raised to the ground in the mid-to-late 1600, records are fragmentary and slow in coming together.

The question to be answers is this: does Wing Chun have a point of origin? If no, then all this history stuff is COMPLETELY a waste of time. If yes, then what is that point of origin? This brings to light another question: How did the system change from origin to today? And one more question: why? These answers might never be completely known but anything we can to shed light is worth the effort.

As I understand the "debate" on history, there are primarily three models.

One posits that Wing Chun was organized into its (more or less) recognizable form during the period of the Red Boat Opera Troupe (1820s-1850s) - advanced by Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie, and Y. Wu in Complete Wing Chun

One posits that Wing Chun was an organized into its (more or less) recognizable form prior to the Red Boats - at the time of the Ming/Qing transition during the mid-1600s. - advanced by the VTM in Mastering Kung Fu and on the VTM website.

A third model does exist but it is fragmentary in nature - as least as far as public information is concerned. This third theory posits that Wing Chun was an organized into its (more or less) recognizable form around the time of the Red Boats (possibly one generation earlier) through the mixture of 12 Zhuang and Fukien White Crane. The information presented, while noted, has not been included in the VTM's working model. Through preliminary investigation, it was discovered that members of the lineage advancing this theory hold different views as to it's veracity. Until an authoritative position can be established investigation of line model will have to wait. As much as I would personally like to understand more of this model and see how this lineage fits into the overall schema of Wing Chun history, given the nature of the activities of the major proponent of this theory, it is unlikely that the date will be any time soon. - advanced by Hendrik Santo

As for “original” in the sense of point of origin:

Based on Model #1 - the Red Boat members were the originators of Wing Chun based on a combination of many Southern kung fu styles.
Based on Model #2 - Monks of the Shaolin Temple and the Hung Fa Wui, among others, were the originators of Weng/Wing Chun
Based on Model #3 - one person was the originator of Wing Chun

It seems to me that Model #1 and #2 both contradict Model #3. It also seems self-evident that, as the VTM is the one proposing Model #2, the VTM will be the one to decide how other Wing Chun lineage fit into model #2 - or change the model based on new information on other Wing Chun lineages. The model is pretty much expressed in Mastering Kung Fu. This is a moment in time in an ongoing process. This is not the end-all-be-all of Wing Chun history. It is only the current status quo.

But, to state that ALL red boat WCK ancestors and WCKlineages are "not origin" until proven "origin" by VTM. begs the question. In what sense? The different lineages exist - they had to come from somewhere. The VTM put forward a theory based on research into history and experience with different lineages (research and experience which continues). Based on that, Hung Fa Yi and Chi Sim are the predecessors of Wing Chun, coming out of the Southern Shaolin temple. If there is an origin, and it is AB, to say that AB is the origin is not a slight to any other lineage.

Hendrik, it’s your ego that’s been bruised. That has nothing to do with the VTM and everything to do with you. The VTM doesn’t exist to placate everyone’s feelings and egos. All Wing Chun is not equal – but it’s up to each of us, as practitioners, to make the determination of what we prefer - for ourselves (I like carrots but not cucumbers!) You feel like you’ve been slighted. You suggest that you have information to counter the VTM theory. The VTM’s theory has been published. When will you stop wasting energy to nit-pick HFY and/or the VTM and simply state what you have to state about your own lineage history and be done with it? Stand on your own two feet, so to type - and let others come to their own conclusion for themselves. There has been a lot of support for the book. Personal friends of Sifu Meng, Sifus active in the Ip Man lineage, have called and written to congratulate him on the book and the information contained therein. They’re not threatened by the book. Why are you? Honestly, I want to see your information published. It can only be for the betterment of the community. I’m not threatened by your information; I’m curious about it. If you were to hold a workshop, I’d do my best to make it there. But maybe that attitude is something that you and I don't share.

Jeremy R.

yuanfen

12-04-2003, 12:50 PM

Passing through sez:
The Red Boat is the point of origin (in this sense) for all Wing Chun as we know it today - except Chi Sim, Hung Fa Yi, and possibly Cho Ga (but that remains to be researched from the VTM’s point of view).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first part of the statement is also just a point of view.
My POV- wing chun is too developed to be "invented" in something as recent as the redboat era- though the redboat undoubtedly added infusions of things along the way.
It remains a POV because it is more imortant to understand, do and pass on with hopsfully added understanding of the art- wing chun today.

It's nice to know about the Piccard balloon flights uo towards space- but lots of very good space engineers get by without knowing about the Piccard brothers explorations upward (space)and downwards(ocean) except via television stories.

So I thank all those sijo-s upstream who didnt pollute the water I taste and drink today.

taltos

12-04-2003, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by yuanfen
So I thank all those sijo-s upstream who didnt pollute the water I taste and drink today.

I can drink to that. I think that most of us share that same sentiment (that our Wing Chun is "pure" and has has not been "polluted"), which is why we continue to study it.

Of course, personal preference may differ as to taste and type of tea.

-Levi

yuanfen

12-04-2003, 02:23 PM

Levi:

Of course, personal preference may differ as to taste and type of tea.

-Levi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I have zero problem with that.

And if stick to that idea many of the heat without light exchanges would disappear.

anerlich

12-04-2003, 03:15 PM

I think the usage of the term invincible comes from you

I don't have the book with me, but IMO there is a clear contention that the "formula" can overcome practitioners of any other system, no matter what they do, even if they have superior attributes. It doesn't come from me. Perhaps your definition of "invincible" differs from mine.

then it is considered a valid, or perfect system.

I would need to see empirical evidence that it worked in reality as well as using purely theoretical constructs. Theories are just theories until they are backed up by experiment and observation, something that with your scientific bent I'm sure you can appreciate. You guys keep saying "you have to experience it", and I agree completely.

I find this very attractive personally due to my own background in the philosophy of organicism in the arts.

I too like that, if we are talking about the same thing. Particularly interesting to me is how scientific understanding changes (grows organically) over time, and with it the methods used to achieve certain results. The "formula" is anomalous here in that it was purportedly complete 300 years ago and has required no change to meet the different environment of modern times, or to include new input from scientific advances made in the meantime.

While this may be considered beneficial to some... in my mind it is a very dangerous thing to do.

So it's a matter of opinion. I presume you are not suggesting that other Wing Chun systems or other MA's are made up of whatever someone liked doing at the time, that would be both inaccurate and uncharitable.

ie. low tan sau in SNT, raised tan sau in wooden dummy.... chi sau as a learning tool, not as a fighting tool etc

The big problem with the book is that it chucks everything other than HFY into one basket and then p*sses on it. TWC doesn't have a low tan sao in SNT and a high one on the dummy. Get it right or leave it out.

You very well could be programming your body's muscle memory with contradicting code

The computer analogies didn't fly for me when Hendrik used them, and they still don't now. Once again I don't have the book with me, but surely HFY was a distillation and combination of various ideas from various sources that preceded it. Other than the story of Chang San-Feng learning taiji in a dream, no "system" has ever sprung fully-formed and immutable from the void.

To take your argument further, maybe you shouldn't cycle, rock climb, surf, skate, play football, golf or a musical instrument, or do yoga, in case you program your body's muscle memory with conflicting code.

I think you underestimate your body's capacities. And again, you do other WC systems and MA's a disservice by implying they are just an eclectic grab bag of techniques with no coherent goals or structures. What you describe here is not what my Sifu teaches.

For me the ultimate test of a fighting system would have to be based on it's efficiency using only the rules in the physics of time and space.

My suggestion was that, without EMPIRICAL evidence (experiment, observation, but as a fan of science you knew that), you have to take it on faith that it actually works in the real world. For me, short of a deathmatch (see the last link in my .sig) sporting contests are the only legal way that could happen. Once again I draw you back to your group's requirement for direct experience.

Sorry to get all scientific on you

No apology required, I didn't find your post particularly scientifically rigorous.

anerlich

12-04-2003, 03:22 PM

Jeremy,

I appreciated the depth of your arguments, your objectivity, and the civil tone of your responses to my arguments.

I think if we ever meet in the real world, we'll get on just fine.

anerlich

12-04-2003, 03:28 PM

Should we praise a cat for being a cat?

If you saw my two new Seal Point Siamese kittens, I think you'd find it very hard not to praise them :D

duende

12-04-2003, 03:35 PM

"To take your argument further, maybe you shouldn't cycle, rock climb, surf, skate, play football, golf or a musical instrument, or do yoga, in case you program your body's muscle memory with conflicting code.

I think you underestimate your body's capacities. And again, you do other WC systems and MA's a disservice by implying they are just an eclectic grab bag of techniques with no coherent goals or structures. What you describe here is not what my Sifu teaches."

Anerlich,

I really wasn't trying to imply anything. Only that if you train your body to react to physical threats, that those reactions should not be in conflict with eachother, but instead should be in harmony via a consistent logic flow.

Muscle memory programming via yoga, musical instruments etc... have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.... But maybe a tennis player has a good haymaker....

The disservice you refer to really comes from your own slant on my post. Not my post itself.

anerlich

12-04-2003, 05:14 PM

The disservice you refer to really comes from your own slant on my post. Not my post itself.

I can accept that.

Assuming that when you were talking about people who grab bits and pieces from everywhere and try to make them into a system, that you are not referring to the vast majority of non-HFY WC practitioners with legitimate lineage.

If you were talking about most or all non-HFY WC lineages though, then you most definitely ARE doing them a disservice ...

But of course you weren't. Were you?

duende

12-04-2003, 05:30 PM

Anerlich...

dude chill...

Honestly, I was just taliking about what I see as the importance of logic flow in systems, and the forseeable dangers that may arise when mixing martial arts systems... where the logic flow can be vulnerable to conflicting rules or concepts.

I really wasn't trying to diss anyone. My examples weren't aimed at anyone... they were just meant to be obvious WC examples.... period.

Alex

BTW... I knew my examples did not apply to TWC.

anerlich

12-04-2003, 05:47 PM

Duende.

Understood and accepted. Consider me chilled.

Peace.

Ultimatewingchun

12-04-2003, 07:50 PM

Chango:

It is NOT very clear that the Friendship seminar video has been taken out of context; on the contrary, Garrett Gee makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR why he thinks he should be in a cross position instead of a parallel position - he explains that using the tan-da while starting in a parallel-arm, left neutral side stance position would slow down his ability to launch an immediate counter strike with his right hand punch...

and in this regard he is correct - but the problem is, as I explained in my previous post, this is a myopic view of the OVERALL situation - because he is open (literally...OPEN...) to being knocked out by a rear cross if he follows his HFY formula and steps in with tan-da from the right neutral side stance (cross-arm) position.

It is a potential knockout blow because he's literally moving right into THE most powerful blow in Western Boxing: the rear cross.

And no, duende, Meng's rear cross would NOT require much more time because the amount of time that elapses between the jab and the cross is purposely infinitesmal when launched by a good boxer)...and of course the rear cross is going to have enough power because Gee's tan sao WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME to deflect the jab in a way that would affect the power behind the coming rear cross...

at best - Gee will go one-for-one, ie. - they both get hit (not a very good idea since the cross will have more power since it comes from the rear with all the extra movement and torque behind it); and at worst, Gee risks getting hit with the cross without hitting his opponent at all - (especially true if the opponents' arms are longer or if he possesses greater hand speed)..

and your last point about Gee's position allowing him sufficient time to lop gong Meng is the most preposturous assertion of all...

you, duende, have OBVIOUSLY never tried to pull off this last maneuver - or to be quite frank, ANY of the moves you describe, against ANYONE who truly knows how to deliver a rear-cross combination.

In summation, Chango, duende, and whoever else...

The formula, quite frankly, at least as it pertains to this scenario, one that GEE HIMSELF CHOOSES TO SINGLE OUT AND ADDRESS...
is outdated and INEFFICIENT...(ie. - INFERIOR) to the TWC blindside approach.

I guess there weren't too many Western Style boxers at the Shaolin Temple back in the day throwing very fast and powerful jab-cross combinations when HFY was being formulated.

The moral of the story: THINGS CHANGE.l

duende

12-05-2003, 12:27 AM

Parlati...

You've taken a demostration of Tan Da technique out of context. And now you've change the forward front straight punch to a forward jab/rear cross-combination. But besides all that... you've pre-judge a system you know little to nothing about.

Fortunately, their are 12-year veteran Sifu's like Dale Vits from your own lineage who know that being a true teacher is to always have the mind of a student.

My Sihing Allen Chow just took out a boxer nearly twice his size two weeks ago using something called "forward energy" and "occupying of space" (The boxer made the mistake of dissing HFY to his face at work). So your denying the rules of physics for fear of the dreaded... BOXING REAR CROSS!!!! doesn't hold much water to me.

You have no idea of the importance of Deui Ying (facing), and Jeui Ying (tracing). You have no idea about the nature of Sui Sing Tin Yan Dei, and Dai Sing Tin Yan Dei.... Like I said before... your all caught up on chasing punches.

That is precisely why you call the technique I gave you ridiculous. In your own words you say the only outcome is....

"at best - Gee will go one-for-one, ie. - they both get hit (not a very good idea since the cross will have more power since it comes from the rear with all the extra movement and torque behind it); and at worst, Gee risks getting hit with the cross without hitting his opponent at all - (especially true if the opponents' arms are longer or if he possesses greater hand speed)..."

What a great example of the trading punches mindset. One that is solely focused on physical attributes, and speed. Forget about the laws of physics, that only one object can occupy one space at one time... forget about speed being dependent on distance traveled over time... Let's just have techniques. Blindside ones.... Entry ones.... etc... etc.... etc...

Forget about the concepts and reasonings behind techniques that allow them to work in the first place.

I have nothing more to say to you. Except that I truly wish we could communicate in a less volatile manner.

Chango

12-05-2003, 01:19 AM

VP Sifu,
I can only say that I have applied "live side" applications on my cousin who is a Pro boxxer (William Young 22-0-1 light heavy wieght). My family is a "boxing family". My great uncle trained the great Davey Moore! So I have to say that I do my fair share of testing my kung fu agianst western boxing. I almost hate to admit it but my cousin and I spare and play like teenagers when we see each other. Gloves sometimes and sometimes not! but we grew up pretty close and have no problems hitting each other hard! We find that HFY is for combat and boxing is a combat sport so grabs and lower gate chellenges really hinders his boxing in combat.

I think we have to first get beyond what you call a side neutral stance and what is used in HFY. You will find that the space and structure is very differnt. I know you may not see it no matter how much it is explained here. I strongly feel that To do so a first hand experience would be needed. To copy it off of a video or out of a book would still not allow one to have the proper energy and I would dare say structure. There is a concept called "Hau chuen san sau" Simply put you need to experience things in first person to gain it's essence. so yes at this point I would have to admit that if you do not understand the HFY formula it could be down right impossible to grasp how to apply things on the live side. So I will have to still maintain that you are missing something. Let's also make it clear that taking the "dead side" is not something unique to TWC. HFY has a very clear approach to both live side and dead side applications.

But going back to Western boxing have you ever really been in a 3 minute round 3,5,7,10 round match before? If so how many times could you control what side you recieve in a exchange? It is simply not realistic to think that you will be able to achieve the "dead side" in every exchange. yes it is good to attempt to fight out side of your opponent's power (as my uncle calls it) but any experienced fighter will make this almost impossible. So you better know what to do if you end up on the live side! HFY has a very precise approach to this. it's all grounded firmly in concepts based on being the most efficient one can be in Time, space and energy. once you experience this first hand you probrably will agree that this is timeless regardless if it is western boxing or anything else!

however at this point I can only say that we should just agree that we do not agree on the system that I practice. I say that with out question your assertions on HFY lacks the insite to make a valid judgement of the subject at hand. You may not believe this to be true. So it is pointless to attempt to convince you otherwise. I hope you gain this insite if you do not. I wish you well in your training. TWC in my opinon is a good system. I understand your attachment.

BTW- Jeremy your reveals so many depths of truth! well written and comunicated!

Chango SGS

Ultimatewingchun

12-05-2003, 07:07 AM

Chango:

I've worked on what you call the live side many, many times against boxers and the strategy employed on the video does not work when in the cross, or open position (your live side). YOU need to see how TWC handles manipulating this position to our advantage...very different than rushing in with tan-da , which clearly leaves one open to the rear cross...

by the way, duende - the cross is not dreaded but given its proper respect - and furthermore - using the blindside parallel position AS ONE'S INITIAL POSITON strategy gives the best FORMULA for NOT having to trade punches.

I suggest the two of you get your hands on some of William Cheung's videos - or better yet, attend one of his seminars.

CarlDouglas108

12-05-2003, 09:33 AM

Sifu Parlati>I suggest the two of you get your hands on some of William Cheung's videos - or better yet, attend one of his seminars.

duende>Fortunately, their are 12-year veteran Sifu's like Dale Vits from your own lineage who know that being a true teacher is to always have the mind of a student.

There was a former student of TWC at the last seminar and it's almost comical for you to talk about attending seminars when you show a lack of interest in taking your own advice?.
I got to see both the HFY and TWC SNT played side by side ten feet away, amazing that they actually look nothing alike?.

TWC seminar VTM September 23 1999 (http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1999/sep23_1999.php)

Interview With William Cheung (http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/1999/wm_cheung_dinner.php)

TWC seminar VTM June 3-4 2000 (http://home.vtmuseum.org/timeline/2000/june03-04_2000.php)

Sifu Noaks attended all three of these visits with GM Cheung?!.

Regards

CD

Chango

12-05-2003, 03:52 PM

VP Sifu,
I can only say that from your post and your discription of what your have in your video clip. It is clear that you do not understand HFY's approach. If you had a good grasp and simply disagreed I can just say you just disagree. But at this point I can only say that you do not have this understanding in HFY. I don't doubt that you have western boxing experience. It is clear that you understand TWC (being a certified Sifu) but your lack of understanding in HFY is due to only having a video and a unread 222 pg book to aid in you understanding. I personally think this book was written very well and as clear as it could possibly be. But a book still has it's limitations.

I can say that I've had personal experience with professional boxers on the subject of western boxing. I've attened 3 siminars also spending those entire weekends with GM William Cheung. Not to mention the time spent with GM Cheung in Hong kong during the VTAA conference in 1999. this gives me my first hand experiences in TWC. As a senior student of Sifu Benny Meng I have had many direct expiences with my Sigung GM Garret Gee. I'm a 10th generation member of the HFY family it doesn't get any more first hand then this.

my point is not that these experiences make me an expert on all of these subjects. I'm just letting you know that I'm speaking from hands on experiences with all things in question.

So I can only say that you do not have enough information to make this call on HFY. I persaonally have asked GM Cheung him self about the live side. This was during the first siminar I ever attended by GM Cheung. The theme of that particular workshop was B.O.E.C. As a matter of fact from what I gathered it seemed B.O.E.C. was a method used to give the workshop info but not how TWC teaches it's current members. I'm not sure if that was just that simnar's method or TWC's systems approach. Maybe you could weigh in on this.

At this point let's just agree to disagree.

Sifu Chango Noaks :D

saifa5k

12-05-2003, 08:39 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by duende
[B]Parlati...

Forget about the laws of physics, that only one object can occupy one space at one time... forget about speed being dependent on distance traveled over time...

**Guess you have never seen or been in a car wreck ;)
Davec

Ultimatewingchun

12-05-2003, 11:20 PM

Chango:

Well I must say that your last post was most civil, and I'll be glad to weigh in on the subject (B.O.E.C.) that you brought up. We can agree to disagree. But first let me explain that most of your posts seem to be very different in nature than most of the posts coming from HFY enthusiasts...I don't hear the "our system is the only pure and definitely the most advanced wing chun because all others are inefficient and inferior" attitude coming from you in the same way I hear it from most other HFY folks...that attitude is really starting to rub the wrong way...

That said, let me say some things about B.O.E.C. Firstly, it is the approach taken both at public seminars and in private; the only difference being that publicly the parallel stance is heavily emphasized becaue the blindside is easier to reach than from the cross position - whereas at instructor seminars and private lessons with GM Cheung the cross position is explored more fully, because - as you correctly pointed out in in one of your recent posts - the PARALLEL blindside can't always be maintained - so it is imperative to be able to fight from both positions.

B......BALANCE
O......OPENINGS
E......ELBOWS
C......ARMS CROSSED

Maintaining one's own balance (ie.- 50/50 weight distribution) is a major principle used in TWC; the obvious exception being that when a kick is thrown then virtually all of one's body weight would be placed exclusively upon the support leg.

The other side to the coin is to take every opportunity to unbalance you opponent - for example we often use lop sao as a defense against a hook punch because the motion of lop sao is very efficient in not only stopping the incoming punch but also in serving to redirect his energy away and down - thereby unbalancing him (very similar to the HFY chum kiu principle - "destroying his structure"- I believe is the way Garrett Gee described it on the video).

Another example of the TWC method in this regard would be to put a boxer attempting to throw a jab "back on his heels", so to speak, by using a very aggressive bong sao/wu sao that comes from underneath his arm with energy and forward force that lifts his arm up...and...because I'm going forward... therefore also pushing him backwards, if only just slightly...since the bong sao must quickly be changed into lop da in order to maintain the attack and the initiative.

(As you might have guessed I am talking about coming from the parallel arm/leg position...ie. - he has a right leg/arm in the lead and I have a left arm/leg lead on the outside of his lead leg - and therefore, by the way, you can see that I am further away from his other arm - such as a rear cross - then I would be if I were facing him from the cross position (ie. - he has his left leg forward and so do I).

OPENINGS... We are constantly monitoring our opponents body structure, stance, hand and foot placement, weight distribution, etc...so as to be able to attack with a strike, kick, and so forth. (For example - again using a boxing situation - and again using the parallel position scenario....if the boxers' lead arm is dangling low - the way Muhammad Ali quite often used it - the opening is:

to throw our lead punch at his BODY (ie.- the ribs)... right near where his lead elbow is hanging...which is a great segway to the next topic:

ELBOWS... In TWC we watch the opponents' elbows constantly and we seek to control them just as constantly.

The elbow travels twice as slow as the fist when a straight punch is thrown and 4x slower when a hook is thrown - therefore it is easier to see what's coming at you IN TIME TO COUNTER IT if you watch elbows instead of fists (The same principle applies to monitoring knees instead of feet when going up against kicks).

So the logical next step is that we very often block, deflect, etc. at the elbow against punches and at the knee against kicks.

Control of the opponent's elbows and knees also serves to upset his balance TO A VERY GREAT DEGREE....and finally...

arms CROSSED means to always be on the alert for when his arms cross each other because it is a golden opportunity to trap (or pin) his arms for an immediate opportunity to strike the opponent perhaps multiple times - without any danger of being hit back;and needless to say, this also can serve to greatly unbalance him and really set him up for the finish.

I'll give an example of this from the cross arm/leg position:

He has the left leg forward and so do I...Both his arms are held up near his head in a classic boxing stance with his elbows flared slightly outward but still reasonably close to the sides of his body near his rib areas -

I step in and throw my left hand lead punch toward his body area right in-between his arms but on the horizontal line that brings my left fist slightly closer to where his right arm/elbow is placed than where his left is placed (my extended right hand wu sao is traveling in as a shield along the horizontal line that is closest to where his left arm/elbow is placed....so I'm simultaneously practicing attack and defense because both of his possible straight lines of attack toward my body are covered by this TWC tactic that I'm now employing....

let's say his response to my punch is to use his left hand as a push block (like pak sao)...this now gives me the opportunity to pak (but actually more of a pinning motion than slapping) his left forearm/elbow area with my right hand while running my left hand lead punch around and over the top to resume punching up near his face...and his response to this is to try to push block or slap my punch with his right hand (attempting to redirect my left hand punch towards my right...

his arms are now crossed (like what can happen frequently in chi sao when someone's hand/forearm area crosses over the centerline)...

I now run my left hand around to trap/pin his right arm wrist area on top of his left elbow area WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY STEPPING UP AND TO THE OUTSIDE of his left leg with my right leg....putting me in the parallel blindside position where I punch with the right fist...to be followed by the left while my right hand now replaces the left as the trapping hand....

This is an example of not only trapping when his arms are crossed but also of manipulating the situation to the SUPERIOR blindside/parallel position even though I started in the cross/ open side position.

Brithlor

12-06-2003, 12:12 AM

I'm interested in HFY wing chun but can't find much information on it...

Anyone have any video clips of HFY WC in action? I'd especially like to see one of their forms aswell.

If anyone can help with that I would greatly appreciate it. :)

anerlich

12-06-2003, 12:31 AM

I'm interested in HFY wing chun but can't find much information on it...

Brithlor,

IMO the book is the only detailed explanation of HFY currently extant. My review of it is at the start of this thread. For reasons that should be obvious reading the recent posts on this thread (my thread, and them bastids hijacked it ;) ) you're unlikely to get much of value from any downloadable video clips, unless you REALLY enjoy lineage arguments.

Brithlor

12-06-2003, 01:03 AM

I enjoy both :-P.

Seriously, if you know of some place I can ANY clips of HFY wing chun then please don't hold back :).

If anyone has some clips they know of that display an accurate representation of HFY wing chun then please direct me to the URL in either a private message or right here.

Thanks!!!

duende

12-06-2003, 04:34 AM

Anerlich,

I sincerely apologize for my contributions to the hijacking of your thread.

Let me just say that, while I fully respect Sifu Parlati for the way I've seen him stand up for GMWC and TWC. In no way am I going to consume the kind of over the top out bursts he dished out in his prior posts.

I am glad that Chango's and Parlati's discussion has evolved into a more mutual respectful one.

Alex

Ultimatewingchun

12-06-2003, 10:24 AM

duende:

As regards this quote...."Forget about the laws of physics, that only one object can occupy one space at a time...forget about speed being dependednt upon distance travelled..."

Look, let's put it this way: If the straight lead is thrown with total commitment (Benny Meng's role in the video)....total commitment meaning even weight distribution is affected and Meng finished up his move with, say 70% of his weight on his leading right leg...

thereby putting all his eggs in the one basket (ie. - no rear cross coming, just an attempted knockout-type blow with the lead fist),
then the tan da response would make perfect sense as a counter
move...

but in the scenario I described (the jab followed instantaneously by the cross), although Garrett Gee's righthand punch might technically be travelling faster than the cross over a slightly shorter distance...

the problem is that the cross could still be travelling on a line that Gee's right fist is not travelling on...BUT A HORIZONTAL LINE THAT IS VERY CLOSE TO GEE'S LINE...

so the cross could easily land no more than perhaps a tenth of a second after Gee's punch...AND THERE IS THE TRAIN WRECK THAT SAIFA5K DESCRIBES...Gee and Meng both get hit.

And guess what? If Gee's opponent was a very big man with longer reach and faster natural hand speed...he could quite conceivably hit Gee and not get hit himself.

How do I know all this?

Because I've worked this scenario countless times over the last 28 years wherein I played Gee's role and someone else was throwing the jab-cross....it's too risky....sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. (And I've seen others work withis scenario as well - with the same results).

So the key to the whole matter is that if the lead is coming by it self...fine, the tan da response works...but if the opponent follows with the cross (a decision that only he controls)... then you're in dangerous waters.

Savi

12-06-2003, 02:00 PM

Ultimate WC,
Despite your experience, your knowledgebase lacks HFY concepts and its specific energetics. Trying to apply a HFY Tan Da from TWC or any of your previous knowledge is not compatible. I don't care how many ways you try to argue the point, as it has been said before, square pegs don't fit round holes. Without the conceptual and energetics training, you won't get the appropriate output you seek.

A Tan Da in the HFY, or any two handed technique, is focused around a simultaneous offense and defense. To deliver a jab - regardless of how committed it is, is still only one technique against two (a tan and a strike). Sure a cross punch may be only fractions of a second behind, but you cannot refute that the person delivering the jab is already hit before the cross lands.

Another thing you do not seem to comprehend is the strength behind HFY structure. HFY structure is designed to absorb maximum impact while delivering just the same. There are many concepts that guide this function. Concepts that guide 'singular parts'... the lead hand, the back hand, the C/L, each leg. Not to mention concepts that guide multiple parts in unison... arms and legs, legs and body, arms and body, etc. All of those concepts are part of the physical structure (which structure directly influences energetics) of HFY functionality. I highly doubt anyone not studying HFY will even know them or how to use them accordingly. That can be said of ANY combat system, so don't think I'm bashing anybody or system.

To put it simply, a person throwing a jab has a "long-short" problem. At the maximum range/reach of a jab, a cross punch cannot get to WITHOUT adjusting the body, ie rotating the waist. Speed and reflex do nothing for you if you do not own the real estate. In a HFY Tan Da, Pak Da, whatever, the defensive hand and the offensive hand both have equal range/reach - hence the ability to deliver them simultaneously. The Tan Sau only has to endure that split second of impact... the striking hand in the HFY application is already structured for delivering precise and destructive damage before it is even released. To understand this is to understand the "Wu Sau" position and its relationship to the body.

All techniques in HFY are guided by risk management. In this case, the issue is management of space. A Tan Sau (as well as any other defensive hand) is strategically placed to intercept any second effort attacks. They are not static postures held in tension (as in locked). A HFY Punch shares the same structural integrity of the Tan Sau as well, serving multiple purposes of protecting space while simultaneously destroying the opponent through its structure.

Not to mention that you haven't even seemed to consider what the intent is behind the person doing the HFY app? Do you really think Master Gee is going to just stand there after the Tan Da? Do you not think or realize that a Tan Da may even be a set up for something else? Things in combat, from a HFY perspective, are not done without the intent of controlling the real estate (obtaining the best position on the field) first. Also, you have to ask yourself what it is you have gained and/or lost in terms of positioning, structure, and range. To fail to identify these things gives rise to "What if this" or "What if that", and in turn allows the opponent to do exactly those things! In contrast, to recognize what you have lost or gain, is to know when it is best to attack or defend, and that in itself may eliminate the opponent's options; those "What if's".

From what I have gathered from your posts here, there is much more than even you may understand or have considered on HFY strategy, tactic, and application. The Tan Da is something that can be easily understood in face to face and hand to hand examination(s). That, doesn't require lengthy posts which are/may be difficult to understand in its intended context.

Ultimatewingchun

12-06-2003, 02:59 PM

Savi:

Once again I am forced to really go on the offensive with yet another HFY guy....your arrogance in assuming that I don't already know and have experienced countless times ALL the concepts you mention in your post - because you ERRONEOUSLY believe that they are the exclusive property of HFY...

this arrogance is astounding.

I'm going to chalk it up to youthful exuberance and inexperience, namely...yours.

So rather than going point-for-point through your last post I choose to just address one of your comments because the point you make rests upon a FALSE assumption that affects the whole outcome, ie.- that using tan da from the cross side position against a lead hand punch is sailing on dangerous waters...

You wrote: "...a person throwing a jab has a 'long-short' problem. At the maximum range/reach of a jab, a cross punch cannot get to you WITHOUT adjusting the body, ie.- rotating the waist. Speed and reflex do nothing for you if you do not own the real estate..."

There are two ERRONEOUS assumptions that you make in this statement that betray your lack of experience in dealing with a GOOD boxer...

1) Do you remember that I said in a previous post that the time interval that a good boxer uses between the jab and the cross is purposely infinitesmal ?

Well the way this is accomplished is that the jab is PURPOSELY NOT THROWN to its maximum range/reach...which means that the cross is thrown a split second faster than you...Savi...think it's thrown...I had this explained to me once by a boxer friend when I was playing the Garrett Gee role (using tan da)...

AS SOON AS THE THE WING CHUN MAN STARTS TO MOVE IN WITH the tan da...

the jab is interrupted (ie. the brakes get put on it) and the cross begins to fly...

2) The boxer DOESN'T HAVE TO OWN the same piece of real estate - at this point in the exchange - as the wing chun man...
in order to successfully hit the wing chun guy.

His cross can now travel on a horizontal line VERY CLOSE to the line that the wing chun guy is using to deliver his punch...and regardless of the fact that the wing chun line might be ever-so-slightly closer to the target than the line the boxer is using to attack upon...

the wing chun man will still get hit...even if his punch lands slightly - AND I DO MEAN SLIGHTLY - before the boxers' punch lands...hence - the train wreck.

Savi

12-06-2003, 05:11 PM

HA HA HA! Sifu Parlati, you sure crack me up with your hypersensitivity, geeze... Grow up, eh? take a look at your last post buddy. You seriously need to chill. CHILL DUDE. You need a drink of water or something? Trying to be helpful and I get accused of being arrogant... guess that's how it is around here...

It is quite clear that you didn't even read/understand my other post with an open mind - on top of presuming many things. Perhaps you didn't read Sandman's post about hostility, huh?

Originally posted by UltimateWingChun
THERE IS A HUGE HOLE IN THE HFY FORMULA...that needs to be addressed right now.

I've been watching the first friendship seminar tape wherein at one point Garrett Gee is in a left neutral side stance vs. Benny Meng's right front stance (and Benny is going to throw a straight right hand at Gee's face)....wherein Gee explains that according to the HFY formula he (Gee) should turn into a right neutral side stance so that his lead hand (Gee's right) would be closer to Meng's face as a strike while Gee uses a left tan sao to block/deflect Men's right hand straight lead punch....

This rationale only takes into account a few trees and ERRONEOUSLY dismisses the rest of the forest..because since Gee is now moving into Meng's "open side" he (Gee) is now in great jeopardy of being KNOCKED OUT by Meng's rear cross - at the very moment that Gee is attempting to land his first blow with his right hand. (Instead of immediately throwing the rear cross after the right hand lead - Meng's left hand is just dangling down by his side)...

The TWC way of going to the blindside of Meng by starting out in a left neutral stance is a far superior strategy than the one Gee proposes - as the possible rear cross should be taken into consideration as part of ANYONE'S FORMULA in such a scenario...it is much easier to deal with the situation from the blindside right neutral side (which is the "parallel-arm" position - to use TWC parlance) as opposed to the "cross-arm" position that Gee advocates.. Master Gee does not state that this is the only way to defend against a jab. Sifu Chango even stated that he does not doubt Sifu Parlati's example of TWC's solution is effective, but simply that he does not understand HFY reasoning for doing such, or Master Gee's reasoning for demonstrating it. He does not even consider the effectiveness (the structure, the explosiveness) of the HFY punch within the Tan Da. Yet, Sifu Parlati cannot see past that. (I would probably go to the outside of the punch myself, but if Tan Sau had to be used - I can understand why...)

Secondly, Sifu Parlati doesn't even understand what the formula is about, though he may have an idea about what makes up the formula. So his inital argument "There is a huge hole in the formula" is already flawed, based on his own ideas about the formula. But since he appears to be totally convinced of his findings, I am not here to convince him of otherwise known values unknown to him.

As stated before in other words, I will use his own words this time (regarding his own comments):

Originally posted by UltimateWingChun
This rationale only takes into account a few trees and ERRONEOUSLY dismisses the rest of the forest.. He clearly does not understand the intent (Yi Hei) behind the demonstration. Oh well... ignorance leads to ingorant answers.

Oh and Anerlich, thank you very kindly for your review. I thought it was very honest coming from another's POV, both the positive and negative feedback. Good work! If you take a look at the book, pg 112 of Chapter 6 (SNT Skill & Development) discusses some of the concepts employed when considering such things as the scenario above. In particular, the Gei Jong Concept regarding the six gates.

You (general 'you') might find your answers within that chapter for the scenario above. Just watch guys, I'm going to get accused of being arrogant again... hope the chapter helps.

Ultimatewingchun

12-06-2003, 05:19 PM

Savi:

I find it kind of amusing that instead of trying to answer the points raised in my last post - wherein your views about the jab/cross situation are debunked...

You instead choose to go back to one of my earliest posts on this thread and work your way from there.

Could it be that you have NO ANSWER to the points I raised in my last post ?

Savi

12-06-2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Savi:

I find it kind of amusing that instead of trying to answer the points raised in my last post - wherein your views about the jab/cross situation are debunked...

You instead choose to go back to one of my earliest posts on this thread and work your way from there.

Could it be that you have NO ANSWER to the points I raised in my last post ? No, the fact that you didn't even read earlier my post after calling me arrogant, inexperienced, and an exubertant youth and DIDN'T ACKNOWLEDGE the things I said other than one mook point, I thought I would go back to your original post to point out YOUR MISTAKES first. *shrug*

Youthful old timer... ;)

Ultimatewingchun

12-06-2003, 05:38 PM

I think at this point that if I continue talking to you I'd really be wasting my time - as you're now beginning to babble aimlessly.

Adios.

Savi

12-06-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
AS SOON AS THE THE WING CHUN MAN STARTS TO MOVE IN WITH the tan da...

the jab is interrupted (ie. the brakes get put on it) and the cross begins to fly... Timing is of the essence, isn't it? As soon as the "brakes get put on" he/she is eating a knuckle in the face before the cross is launched... Oh wait, that is of course provided I know how to use a Tan Da, and understand the meaning of simultaneous offense and defense. Not to mention that striking is designed to destroy the center of balance thus disabling any secondary attacks/attempts. But then again, I lack experience and I'm arrogant. Right.

See ya...

Chango

12-06-2003, 06:52 PM

Sifu VP,
I think you are reading my kung gu family wrong. Alex and Savi are expressing how exact the HFY systems knowlege is. I think comuncation was broken down some where and things got out of hand. I will personally say that these gentlemen are not arrogant in any way shape or form. I'm proud to be part of the same kung fu family as the gentlemen. I think many people on and off the this forum from our family and other families alike would agree that these guys have had nothing less than outstanding conduct on this message board. I hope you can move forward and continue to engage in sharing information.

Once you read the HFY book you will see that it is very precise in nature. (I'm not saying that other WCK is not) MY point being that if you miss one part of the formula you will notice a loss in efficiency Hints the concept of maximum efficiency. So it does not matter if you have drilled this particular scenario a thousand times if you do not have the HFY formula in tact then you are not testing HFY and so any conclusion drawn would be flawed. Not a flaw of HFY but only in what is being applied instead of HFY.

I still contend that you are not testing this scenario against HFY and simply cannot enjoy the advantages offered by the formula until you have a qualified HFY experience. I say qualified becuase this particular scenario like many others will require face to face interaction to satisfy your thirst.

I can say that FROM MY personal experience HFY's approach to what is center is not the same as TWC's and this is where the comunication is being lost.

You have to realize that If I had never had TWC experience and I tried to apply GM Ip Chun's or GM Moy Yat's (for example) approach It will not have anything close to the results of TWC. I think you will agree this is not logical. My examples all share the same teacher and lineage! But all three results would be different. Becuase with out qualified information each lineage it is not fare to the system to prejudge. I can only say that you do not have enough information to judge HFY. I hope you do experience it in the future. At this point we can only agree to disagree.

BTW- Thanks for the great post on B.O.E.C of TWC. That B.O.E.C was the exact platform use in the first workshop I had with GM Cheung! After I asked about the liveside we practice different methods of getting to the blind side. We then went to grappling prevention via the Spine. :D

I think once you read the book on Shaolin WC you will see that it would be like compairing a Chicken to a turkey both birds but very different animals. I can only say at that point a breast and drum stick and some sides does not make a KFC Two peace (lol!)I guess it's getting close to dinner. So I can only ask you to be fair to the HFY system and get qualified information before passing a judgment. ;)

Sifu Chango Noaks

Brithlor

12-06-2003, 09:35 PM

Anyone know where I can see some footage of HFY wing chun in action (preferably on the internet).

duende

12-07-2003, 12:10 AM

Parlati,

Savi was just trying to provide his knowledgeable insight to your questions on the HFY formula. Personally I did not get the arrogance you mention from his post. To the contrary, I thought he was handling the argument very delicately. Let's just leave it knowing that you and I have very different notions as to who has to grow up.

In WC, you have your understanding/learning experiences, we have ours.

Just because you do not understand HFY theory like you think you do, does not mean that your TWC is any less valid, nor does it mean that we are trying to suggest that.

In my opinion you are criticizing a frozen moment in time (the Tan Da) with criticisms that occur in subsequent time frames.

Part of what Savi was trying to tell you is that the way we cover our upper gates... (by this I mean angle of appoach/coverage/and directed energy/ leverage) allows for many different techniques to answer the problems posed by your rear cross.

Like I said before, until you understand how the combination of this kind of gate coverage with the facing and tracing footwork that comes from deui ying/jeui ying concepts... you really won't understand why I feel perfectly valid in all the scenarios I've responded to you with.

BTW, it sounds like your front jab has now turned into a right fake....

Alex

anerlich

12-07-2003, 03:21 AM

So I can only ask you to be fair to the HFY system and get qualified information before passing a judgment.

That was a good post from Chango. My main criticiism about the book was that it was neither fair nor obtained qualified information before passing judgement on what it denotes as "Popular Wing Chun".

If you seek respect, it also needs to be given.

Sifu Andrew Nerlich

(yes, I AM qualified to use that ititle, pretentious as it sounds)

Savi

12-07-2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by anerlich
qualified information before passing judgement on what it denotes as "Popular Wing Chun". From my POV, the word 'popular' was in conjunction with the various eras of WC's evolution denoted in the book, but paraphrased here:

1. Shaolin to Secret Societies (1640's)

2. Anti-Qing & Opera Societies (1700's)

3. Revolutionary and Red Boat Era (1800's)

4. Anti-Imperialism Era (1900's)

5. Modern Day (popularizing and worldspread marketing and growth/expansion of various lineages, hence the use of the word 'popular')

So to some, the word Popular may be offensive. For purposes of the book and time periods, & IMO based on the context of the developmental eras above, then it seems appropriate. Without the context, it may be either derrogatory to some - or a compliment (there were always the 'popular' people in school right?) To me, the diagram in the book on page 28 illustrates it very well. So from my POV, to reiterate, the term popular is only an association to the commercialization phase in the Genesis of Wing Chun, according the VTM's thesis on the timeline. I simply take an unbiased position on labels, it makes things easier.

Heck, Bruce Lee and Hong Kong Cinema contributed to the popularity of all martial arts as a whole. Everything today influenced by that could be called Popular for all I care! But then again, I'm a nobody - so who cares what I think?!? HA!

As an example, personally, I really don't care that people call HFYWCK: "Repackaged Wing Chun" and that it's all the same stuff 'we' already have, just with different names and labels... It doesn't really offend me, it just shows me what that person's understanding is... so I say, "OK." Whatever you say. Does this perspective on the usage of word Popular broaden anything at all, hopefully?

PS: with any book, you can't please everyone, but if those things you mention are your only gripe, then I'd say you enjoyed a lot about the material in the book.

Ultimatewingchun

12-07-2003, 11:11 AM

Chango, Savi, etc....

1) But I do understand the tan da and the energy and the facing and the tracing and the use of the center....and everythung else you folks are trying to convince yourself that I don't know about...

By now I've watched the scene between Garrett Gee and Benny Meng at least 20 times...and there is nothing in it that is new to me....

NOTHING...

2) The jab I describe is not a fake because the brakes are not put on it (and the cross unleashed) until JUST BEFORE contact is made by the wing chun tan sao. (You guys need to work with the moves Ive described a bit more to see my point.)

3) I must also tell you people that shortly before Moy Yat's death I was invited to dinner by my friend Miguel Hernandez wherein Benny Meng was present (he had come to New York to see Moy Yat)....at one point at dinner he tried to tell me that he thought there was MORE (his exact words) in HFY than in TWC...

and then began to spout the samt theories of formula, facing, tracing, timing, distance, energy, etc. that you guys are doing...but he became very silent when I came back at him with the TWC language FOR THE SAME EXACT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES that he believed did not exist in TWC.

And when I say silent I mean as in not wanting to make a fool of himself if by continuing to walk down the the same slippery slope of misinformation about TWC that he previously was travelling.

I'm getting tired of having to keep on saying all of this...you folks obviously don't want to get the message...so what's the point of continuing this conversation ?

But I will get the book and read it...Andrew Nerlich's word (as a TWC guy) that it's worth reading is good enough for me.

Phil Redmond

12-07-2003, 11:28 AM

Victor wrote:
>>"...and then began to spout the samt theories of formula, facing, tracing, timing, distance, energy, etc. that you guys are doing...but he became very silent when I came back at him with the TWC language FOR THE SAME EXACT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES that he believed did not exist in TWC."<<

That seem to be a problem with WC across the board. Different lineages have different terms for the same thing. The pictures attached to this thread showing HFY drawings/text are NO different from what I have learned in TWC. After all, (most) humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. How different can we be, especially in a sytem, ( ie. WC), where the differences arent' that great ? It's not like we're comparing WC to flowery Wu Shu.
Also, I'd like to know if the HFY students who started out in Moy Yat WC have abandoned it for HFY? If what I've been reading on this thread is right then HFY is a more "original/better" form of WC. Why then continue to do Moy Yat WC if that's the case?

Redd

12-07-2003, 12:05 PM

Thinking about it differently is enough to make it extra special.

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I'm getting tired of having to keep on saying all of this...you folks obviously don't want to get the message...so what's the point of continuing this conversation ?
Right. It is pointless.

saifa5k

12-07-2003, 01:19 PM

That seem to be a problem with WC across the board. Different lineages have different terms for the same thing. The pictures attached to this thread showing HFY drawings/text are NO different from what I have learned in TWC. After all, (most) humans have 2 arms and 3 legs.

Uhhh Phil....3 legs?..... you been smoking the good stuff again ;)

By the way I agree with yours and Victors comments.

Dave c

Phil Redmond

12-07-2003, 02:08 PM

LOLOLOL...whew, I'm glad you caught that one. I've edited the 3 legs statement.

anerlich

12-07-2003, 02:39 PM

PS: with any book, you can't please everyone, but if those things you mention are your only gripe, then I'd say you enjoyed a lot about the material in the book.

I'll thank you not to tell me or others how *I* feel about the book.

I've already explained that in detail above (three and a half stars, pretty good but threw away its opportunity for greatness via that "only gripe"). BTW, if you read my review you'll see it is not my only gripe.

the word Popular may be offensive

The word "popular" is not offensive. What is offensive is putting every other lineage other than HFY and Chi Sim (of Andreas Hoffman, writer of the foreword) in one basket, putting a straw man label on it, and then denigrating it at regular intervals.

That diagram, with a suitable, ahem, "paradigm shift", could just have easily been drawn the other way, with Yip Man, YKS, (even JKD) and other non-HFY/CS lineages as the "real" or evolutionary line, and HFY as a "static" or "retrograde" (don't get upset, they are just words, like "popular" or "impure") offshoot. EVERY WC lineage diagram I've seen other than in "Complete Wing Chun", including this one, has been very political.

But this has all happened before, in many WC lineages, of which at one level at least HFY is just another. And by their words, the authors show that they are subject to the same human frailties and make the same mistakes as everyone else. Not worse, but certainly not better.

LOL @ the three legs.

CarlDouglas108

12-07-2003, 04:35 PM

Sifu Parlati,

You advised two HFY family members to gain more experience in TWC either by "WATCHING" a Video or going to a TWC seminar?.

Sifu Noaks has been present three times with GM William Cheung, two seminars and once at dinner, you chose to ignore this "fact" and carried on about how you know HFY!?.

Sifu Parlati......you have not experienced HFY which is excactly like I can not drive Nascar!!.....I've witnesed it on tv but it doens't make me an expert......hmmm I can drive but again I cannot drive Nascar...the mechanics may be the same but at the end of the day they are completely different, now if I was to experience it first hand then I would have a better understanding!? do you see what I'm getting at?.

I am as I'm sure the rest of the family are...becoming very bored by the fact that you know every thing and it is this ignorance and arrogance that will always create problems for you!?.

Sifu Parlati, you are the best and the greatest at everything....there I've said now do you feel better?.

HFY and TWC are not the same GM William Cheung claims his roots through Yip Man, HFY does not...they are not the same just accept it, you made a comment a while back you could not afford to go to a HFY seminar does that also apply to buying the book?....it is readily availble on Amazon?.

Regards

CD

anerlich

12-07-2003, 06:34 PM

This discussion is generating more heat than light again.

Victor hasn't read the book. CD, he said he plans to get a hold of it. I personally wouldn't dream to judge a system based on one videotape; I haven't seen it so I can't contribute to that part of the discussion.

Chango's been to two seminars with GM Cheung and sat next to him at dinner. Benny Meng's interviewed him a number of times and probably been to a similar number of seminars. That makes them better qualified than the rest of the HFY group to speak on TWC, but only marginally ... I venture to say about as much more than I do to talk about HFY than Victor, because I've read the book. None of the people mentioned can speak with authority on the other system based on what experience of it they have claimed.

I reviewed a book. I didn't review a system.

Some, including people who weren't there, has a theory about why Benny Meng fell silent at the dinner. Who knows? Maybe he got a bad bit of ginger in his meal and felt too ill to talk. Maybe he realised he'd forgotten to pay a bill. Perhaps one of his pets was sick. Maybe Victor hadn't had time to clean his teeth that morning. Who knows? Really?

Some people venture they know why the authors of the book said what they said. Each of us has their own opinion. But what was written is there in black and white. As was my review. If we can stick to what is written rather than self-serving conjectures about it, the discussion *may* get back to a decent level.

Chango

12-07-2003, 08:53 PM

Sifu VP,

<snip> 3) I must also tell you people that shortly before Moy Yat's death I was invited to dinner by my friend Miguel Hernandez wherein Benny Meng was present (he had come to New York to see Moy Yat)....at one point at dinner he tried to tell me that he thought there was MORE (his exact words) in HFY than in TWC...

---I know exactly what dinner conversation you are talking about. It was made perfectly clear that at dinner no one could get a word in because you could not stop going on about how great GM Cheung was. As a matter of fact a representative of WSL lineage was there as well. So here we have two senior students of Moy Yat lineage a Wong shun leung representative and a 9th generation HFY member at dinner and you cannot stop going on boosting about GM Cheung. I agree GM Cheung has had many great accomplishments but there is a proper time and place. This was outright rude.

As far as the TWC and HFY comparison it did not come up until after dinner and you was the one who brought it up! Let me refresh your memory. Quote: “Benny you have seen both sides of the fence on TWC and HFY…” sound familiar?
Sifu Meng replied these systems are very “different”. That was the extent of the conversation. . Any one with direct HFY and TWC experience will confirm that HFY and TWC are as different as cats and dogs. Both have 4 legs but well you know the rest.

In the 17 years that I have trained under Sifu Meng he has never used the word “More” to discribe one system vs the next be it WCK lineages or TKD or Wushu for that matter. He unlike alot people knows that the individual's experiences and ability to learn from them and understand them would consitute the dept of a system. So “more” would be seriously one of the worst choice of words when looking at two systems. “Different” would be his words. I think you really should try harder to remember what really happened.

<snip> and then began to spout the samt theories of formula, facing, tracing, timing, distance, energy, etc. that you guys are doing...but he became very silent when I came back at him with the TWC language FOR THE SAME EXACT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES that he believed did not exist in TWC.

-- You really should read the book (shaking my head slowly) come on man facing ,tracing, timing, distance, energy etc? you claim this to be shared TWC and HFY language? I think you got a hold of Sifu Redmond's stuff that created that 3 legged man earlier in the thread. (ROFLOL)

<snip> And when I say silent I mean as in not wanting to make a fool of himself if by continuing to walk down the the same slippery slope of misinformation about TWC that he previously was travelling.

--are you sure your not related to Stephen King ? no your dinner story reads more like Harry Potter based in total fiction. So that would make you J.k.Rowling! when you are done dreaming up stories about what was said you are still more then welcome to come and see the system first hand and get the answers you seek.

Sifu Phil Redmond,
Happy belated birthday! You are a inspiration.

<snip> That seem to be a problem with WC across the board. Different lineages have different terms for the same thing.

--- I have to say first that the language proplem is in the fact that we often use the same terms but we often mean very much very different things. When communicating most people assume things are the same and miss the entire point.

<snip> The pictures attached to this thread showing HFY drawings/text are NO different from what I have learned in TWC.

--- Different yes different indeed. This is why we are discussing the formula. The formula is the HFY way to the concept of “maximum efficiency” whether it be 1 inch or 1 mile if off of the formula one is not at maximum efficiency. The HFY system then offers test on every level to confirm efficiency. So having said this unless you had the formula in your understanding when doing TWC or any other system then any part of the formula being expressed would have and to have been chance. So at that point we could almost guarrentee that the entire forumula is not being express consistently. So I have to stand by the fact of things being quite different indeed.

<snip> After all, (most) humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. How different can we be, especially in a sytem, ( ie. WC), where the differences arent' that great ? It's not like we're comparing WC to flowery Wu Shu.

--I agree most humans have a pair of each limbs a head and a trunk. This goes back to the logic that this calls for certain common trues and a human. This feeds the logic of finding what is most efficient as a human. You know “maximum efficiency”.

<snip>Also, I'd like to know if the HFY students who started out in Moy Yat WC have abandoned it for HFY? If what I've been reading on this thread is right then HFY is a more "original/better" form of WC. Why then continue to do Moy Yat WC if that's the case?

--This is a fair question. I have personally trained under my Sifu for more then 17 years. I have trained up to teach’s level in Moy Yat lineage. I have also had tutilage from GM Ip Ching and GM Chu shun tin and many other Ip man lineage Grand Masters. I consider this a necessary step in becoming a professional Wing chun teacher. I find that from time to time play forms, Dummy etc… to refresh my memory. But outside of that I only do Shaolin Wing Chun. (HFY and CS)

Off the record Chango to Phil personally. It has been my experience that you can find other systems information with in Shaolin Wing/Weng Chun and not the Shaolin WC in the others.some may argue thier point but i can only go by my experiences. So I personally do not feel a conflict in learning. I understand that each lineage is different and I should never assume what is the same. But that is just me! Chango Noaks one man one teacher etc… off the record.

Peace be on to you!
Sifu Noaks

CarlDouglas108

12-08-2003, 06:49 AM

anerlich>Chango's been to two seminars with GM Cheung and sat next to him at dinner. Benny Meng's interviewed him a number of times and probably been to a similar number of seminars. That makes them better qualified than the rest of the HFY group to speak on TWC

Sisuk Jeremy R. and Sisuk Mike M. were also in attendence at those events as were alot of others?.
So far we have a large number of HFY members that are far better qualified to talk about the comparisons or lack of between HFY and TWC as none or the more vocal TWC members here have witnessed the two side by side in the flesh?. Hopefully Sifu Parlati will purchase the book and then give an honest review based upon what he found in the contents rather than going on about how he understands HFY?.

Regards

CD

Phil Redmond

12-08-2003, 07:48 AM

Andrew wrote:
"LOL @ the three legs."
Talk about a Freudian slip....lol

saifa5k

12-08-2003, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Andrew wrote:
"LOL @ the three legs."
Talk about a Freudian slip....lol

Now Now, no bragging Phil;)

Dave

Tom Kagan

12-08-2003, 09:28 AM

In the 17 years that I have trained under Sifu Meng he has never used the word “More” to discribe one system vs the next be it WCK lineages or TKD or Wushu for that matter. He unlike alot people knows that the individual's experiences and ability to learn from them and understand them would consitute the dept of a system. So “more” would be seriously one of the worst choice of words when looking at two systems. “Different” would be his words. I think you really should try harder to remember what really happened

Fascinating. Though I haven't known him as long as you nor have I had the opportunity to interact with him as you have, "more complete," "most efficient," "the best," etc. would be his exact words to describe comparisons to me on more than one occasion. Whether it was Tae Kwon Do on the outside mixed with Ving Tsun on the inside; or the mix of info "only he" got from a variety of my SiBaks, in my humble opinion that's just my SiHing. I can't say I see much difference in this respect long before he met Mr. Gee.

Everyone's experience is different regardless of whether it's the same event or not.

"I don't have PakSao. But, IF I DID, this is what it would look like ..." -- Pete Pajil, to Garrett Gee ;)

anerlich

12-08-2003, 03:12 PM

Sisuk Jeremy R. and Sisuk Mike M. were also in attendence at those events as were alot of others?.

Are you asking me or telling me?

If I change it to Benny, Chango, Jeremy, Mike and a lot of others are marginally more qualified to compare TWC and HFY than the HFY members who didn't attend, will that satisfy your penchant for pedantry? Were they all sitting next to GM Cheung at dinner? Must have been mighty uncomfortable.

Were you there, Carl? Should I add you to the list as well?

Hopefully Sifu Parlati will purchase the book and then give an honest review based upon what he found in the contents rather than going on about how he understands HFY?.

Another question, or a statement?

Victor's said he's going to read the book, Carl. That's at least once he's told you and twice I have. You told him he could get from Amazon, if yuo look further up the thread you can see I did as well.

From what's said in the book, I can tell that the writers have an incomplete knowledge of TWC, as they put in the the "Popular Wing Chun" basket and make statements about that which are incorrect where TWC is concerned.

I am CERTAIN from looking at the book that TWC and HFY are different. Which, as a TWC practitioner, I see as a good thing.

anerlich

12-08-2003, 03:18 PM

"more complete," "most efficient," "the best," etc. would be his exact words to describe comparisons to me on more than one occasion.

As mentioned, the book shows no reservations about comparison either, though where other WC variants are concerned, it makes many of those comparisons based on incorrect assumptions.

reneritchie

12-08-2003, 06:31 PM

LMAO at Phil's 'dexter st. jock' act... ;)

Phil Redmond

12-08-2003, 08:56 PM

Andrew wrote:
"From what's said in the book, I can tell that the writers have an incomplete knowledge of TWC, as they put in the the "Popular Wing Chun" basket and make statements about that which are incorrect where TWC is concerned".

Andrew, I haven't read the book and you know TWC. If you are saying the book is inaccuate with regards to TWC, what does that say about the other information in the book?

Ultimatewingchun

12-08-2003, 09:13 PM

duende:

Well since you brought it up about Benny Meng and GM Cheung...

2) Benny attended a William Cheung seminar in Detroit wherein he was "blown away" by what he saw...invited GM Cheung to come to Ohio to put on a seminar wherein he promised "many people" would show...Phil Redmond and GM Cheung drive many hours to Dayton wherein a whopping amount of 8 people are waiting to attend...

Meng once again proclaims his admiration for GM Cheung...and then...and then...

becomes a student of Garrett Gee and disappears into the night. That's the extent of "his many interviews" with William Cheung.

2) As regards your nonsense (since you weren't there) about the conversation I had with Meng...remember there are witnesses (ie. - Miguel Hernandez...a sifu with his own school here in Brooklyn who had also studied with Moy Yat (Benny was in fact staying at Miguel's house during this visit)...if asked I'm sure Miguel would verify what was said at the dinner table AND WHY MENG DROPPED THE SUBJECT once he saw that I already knew EVERYTHING he thought I didn't know...

taltos

12-08-2003, 10:24 PM

OK.

We have established that TWC is well respected by the HFY community.

We have extablished that Parlati Sifu feels confident that there is nothing new under the sun based on his experiences with HFY.

It's all relative. Everyone loves their system, and everyone feels that they are getting a lot out of their system. Awesome. That's as it should be.

Can we just agree that we have different interpretations and not name call, name drop, and alienate people who have nothing to do with this arguement?

BUT I'M SICK AND TIRED OF ALL THE CLAIMS OF SUPERIORITY THAT HFY MAKES

I train HFY (along with my Moy Yat Wing Chun). I have never claimed HFY was superior to anything. It's my cup of tea, that's all. If you are upset because you perceive that other people are making claims you disagree with, please don't lump everyone in to the same boat, and say that's what the system says. Master Gee has said no such thing, and he is the GM and Inheritor of the system, so HFY has not said anything to this effect.

SO I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE JAB/CROSS SITUATION SO AS TO BURST THE OVERBLOWN BUBBLEGUM THAT SO MANY OF YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON CHEWING.

Why would you make such a statement, referring to "you people" when you know that there are HFY people out there that have never had any issues with you or anyone else? Various HFY people, like myself, have been nothing but cordial and respectful to everyone here, so why lump us into a group you have created and make veiled insults towards our system?

Can we please step past this and just represent ourselves (and not our systems) and move past the petty politics?

I have nothing but respect for a vast majority of the people here, and I have learned so much from people's posts. It would be magnificent if we could actually conduct ourselves with respect and dignity and humility.

Mo Lam Yat Ga... The martial forest is one family... if only....

-Levi

anerlich

12-08-2003, 10:27 PM

If you are saying the book is inaccuate with regards to TWC, what does that say about the other information in the book?

Phil, the book is only inaccurate and only sometimes - IMO - where it makes judgements about other systems, practitioners, historians, internet users, sportfighters, etc.

As regards the technical basis of HFY as presented in an absolute rather than relative sense (which is the vast majority of what is written), I cannot fault the book and it is not logical to do so, though the inaccuracies made elsewhere may unfortunately and unfairly color the perceptions of some as to its veracity. Only an expert HFY practitioner could critique that part of the book with authority.

As regards the history, the polemic treatment of other WC strains may raise questions about how much of it is objective and how much serving the political thrust of the book, but not being much of a historian it would be wrong of me to make any call in that regard. The history is certainly very detailed and well presented, and at some level at least all history is political.

I would reiterate that this is far and away the best organised and detailed treatment of the technical basis of a subsystem of Wing Chun that I have seen. If that were all that were in the book, it would be a truly excellent book.

CarlDouglas108

12-09-2003, 06:46 AM

anerlich>Are you asking me or telling me?

Why is it Sifu Parlati will not address my statements/question and you seem to be addresssing them for him?.

CD>So far we have a large number of HFY members that are far better qualified to talk about the comparisons or lack of between HFY and TWC as none or the more vocal TWC members here have witnessed the two side by side in the flesh?.

As I said the only people here that are better qualified to talk on the subject of TWC and HFY are the HFY members that were present with GM Cheung!. They got a hands on experience with the GM of the TWC system, who better to talk to?.

anerlich>Were you there, Carl? Should I add you to the list as well?

No, but I'm not the one claiming to understand both systems.
I have witnessed both the TWC and HFY SNT around ten feet away and I can say they are nothing alike!.

anerlich>Victor's said he's going to read the book, Carl. That's at least once he's told you and twice I have. You told him he could get from Amazon, if yuo look further up the thread you can see I did as well.

Sifu Parlati told us earlier on in this thread that he would look into it but he still went on about how he's watched a video and now he understands HFY and again it seems that you are talkiing for him and you're half way round the World?.

Regards

CD

Ultimatewingchun

12-09-2003, 07:37 AM

Levi:

Point well taken..."You people" is too all-encompassing a phrase, as it would seem to include folks who don't make the outlandish claims about HFY that others do....

taltos

12-09-2003, 09:19 AM

Thank you. I think there is much potential for great sharing of information and experience, and I for one would love to see it happen. I could certainly use the advice and expertise of everyone on this forum to make my own fung fu stronger.

-Levi

Zhuge Liang

12-09-2003, 10:50 AM

Hi Levi

Why would you make such a statement, referring to "you people" when you know that there are HFY people out there that have never had any issues with you or anyone else? Various HFY people, like myself, have been nothing but cordial and respectful to everyone here, so why lump us into a group you have created and make veiled insults towards our system?

Can we please step past this and just represent ourselves (and not our systems) and move past the petty politics?

Thank you Levi. FWIW, I concur with most people here that you are one of the most level headed people on the board, especially given all the political hubris that seems to surround us. If fate allows it, I'd like to meet with you one day and have a meaningful and mutually beneficial discussion about Wing Chun (or martial arts in general).

Regards,
Alan

taltos

12-09-2003, 11:39 AM

Alan,

Thanks for the kind words. I hope we can cross paths one day as well. I love discussing and practicing any aspect of WC, from history to philosophy to friendly exchange and chi sau.

I've always been of the mind that there is no person that I can't learn from, and I've found that keeping that frame of mind seems to diffuse any situation before it starts, because I'm never in a conflict situation with them, but a learning situation.

-Levi

reneritchie

12-09-2003, 12:36 PM

I have witnessed both the TWC and HFY SNT around ten feet away and I can say they are nothing alike!.

In Dayton, when Marty did the ASLT and Benny did the SLT, they were very, very close. Everyone, Marty included, Benny included, noted how similar, and indeed, how similar TWC seemed to HFY. Gee sifu spent a long time talking to Marty about TWC, and asking a lot of questions about Cheung sifu and TWC.

In Rochester, when Marty did the ASLT and Benny did the SLT, they were still very, very close, albeit Benny did have more small movements in there. Still, everyone there talked openly about how close the two systems seemed.

Benny went and invited Cheung to the VTM, after all. (and Kudos for doing so).

In LA, when Marty did the ASLT and Jeremy, Mike, and Allen did the SLT, there were more notable differences, again mostly a lot of small, sometime symbolic movements that were absent in the TWC version. I asked Benny about this, and he said that he was still learning the fine points of the art, and getting more precise and detailed as time went on. (lest we forget, Benny an Co. are still relatively new to HFY, at the first FS Seminar, Benny hadn't even heard of Gee sifu yet and demo'd the Moy Yat SNT).

Also, folks should remember, there are different versions of Cheung sifu's sets, so some might look more or less similar, though the overall outline is consistent.

But in the end, who give a flying frick. They're just sets.

Brithlor

12-09-2003, 01:07 PM

Anyone know where I can find some video clips of HFY wing chun in action?

anerlich

12-09-2003, 02:41 PM

Why is it Sifu Parlati will not address my statements/question and you seem to be addresssing them for him?.

Part of your last post addressed to statements I made, which I responded to. Was I not allowed to do that under you rules of rhetoric or something?

You'd have to ask Victor those questions (assuming that's what they are, see remarks about English usage below) - oh sorry, you did. I'm addressing them because I feel like it, in the apparently vain hope that you might stop with the pedantic questions/statements, whichever they are.

As I said the only people here that are better qualified to talk on the subject of TWC and HFY are the HFY members that were present with GM Cheung!.

I dunno, I've read the book, so I have some knowledge of HFY. Or is the book inadequate in that regard?

The authors of the book definitely need more knowledge of TWC before they try tarring it with the "Popular Wing Chun" brush again. They made statements about "Popular Wing Chun" which are incorrect where TWC is concerned, despite having attended the apparently huge number of seminars and meals with GM Cheung.

I've already agreed with you that I believe HFY and TWC are different. I regard that as good for TWC. Keep bringing the point up if obsession/compulsion demand, but you're preaching to the converted.

Sifu Parlati told us earlier on in this thread that he would look into it but he still went on about how he's watched a video and now he understands HFY and again it seems that you are talkiing for him and you're half way round the World?.

When most people construct English sentences, they end questions with a question mark, and statements with a full stop. You appear to want to have your cake and eat it too. Are you asking me or telling me?

I can and will speak for whoever I want. Victor can tell me to butt out if he wants, and I will. In any case, very few of the HFY "bloc" on this board have much credibility pontificating about not speaking for others.

If the HFY cast of thousands you mentioned attended the seminars, why are YOU speaking for them? Take your own advice and butt out, lest people think there's some conspiracy (shock/horror!) afoot, like you seem to feel there is between Victor and myself.

Taltos, as noted by others, is an exemplary poster. You, and all of us, would do well to emulate him.

Brithlor,

No. On another thread someone mentioned that future video pulbications were under consideration by the VT Museum, but nothing definite was planned.

anerlich

12-09-2003, 04:22 PM

Why do you always talk for other people? Repeating stories like you were right there too.

Something that could be said to 99% of the posters on this thread, including you in your own reply. And I think Rene WAS right there, was he not?

Since you raise the subject (talking for other people):

Anerlich stated recently (paraphrasing) the forms were nothing alike.

I did indeed say that, or something very similar, but it is important to view that in the context in which I said it. Comparing the TWC forms with what I saw in the book (which is not even close to the complete forms) , I could see significant areas of difference, even in the basic parallel-foot stance. But I've seen nothing else - it's funny that you use me as some sort of authority on TWC and HFY differences, when I haven't even attended a few seminars and sat next to a grandmaster at dinner, which is apparently what it takes to become an expert on a Kung fu system other than one's own these days.

Per your counsel though, I would not speak for Rene, and it is inappropriate for you to use my words as some sort of appeal to authority to discredit his recounting of what he saw.

You can use your impressions about what the other TWC'ers said, but then you commit the same sin you jump all over Rene about (talking for other people).

Certainly the way my Sifu teaches the forms now is VERY different to the way he taught them 5 years ago. They and the HFY forms come from different galaxies for sure. I could say the same might be true of Benny Meng, but then I'd be talking for him and that is obviously VERBOTEN!!!!!!!!!!

reneritchie

12-09-2003, 04:26 PM

[edited for pointlessness}

Dude, I was there, everything I wrote is from personal, direct, experience and a perspective other than TWC or HFY so have the good grace to take it for what it's worth.

Also, you've been given bad info. That's not your fault, but its your reality, and you have to decide if your more comfortable thinking I'm an idiot and believing the BS, or keeping one eye open from now on, and your BS detector more finally tuned. I have no control over that, but I wish you well.

Lastly, the WCML is above reproach. Anyone not currently on was incapable of filling their real full name, lineage, and working email into the form, or was too lazy to contact me directly for help. That's your/their fault. I'll bust my butt to help people with that list, and my rep is stellar in that regard. Heck, send me a list of addresses with full names and lineage, and I'll get them up asap!

Ultimatewingchun

12-09-2003, 06:29 PM

I'd like to weigh in on the similarities/differences issue regarding TWC and HFY...

On the video I've alluded to on this thread Benny Meng performs the HFY SLT form...which I've watched many times by now...There are definitely similarities with TWC...including the footwork and other moves in the HFY form that are found in the Advanced SLT done in TWC....

without going into all the details (at least not on this post)...I see a significant number of similarities between the two systems forms...

that don't exist within the SLT I learned from Moy Yat back in the day. I also want to add that I also have a copy of the Hong Kong Friendship seminar wherein a sizable number of people - mostly from the Yip Man lineage... performed SLT - and there was virtually no difference between theirs and Moy Yat's....

That said...I agree with Rene that the differences between the HFY and the TWC SLT (and there are differences)...those differences are almost all connected to minor moves...

Now add the TWC Entry technique to the mix...Miguel Hernandez informed years ago (he was also in attendance at the Freindship seminar with Garrett Gee...that Gee also demonstrated the "entry" technique that I showed him from TWC long before that...

I've also seen some similarities between the sidestepping footwork used in TWC and the HFY footwork...

as well as some concepts and techniquest that Garrett Gee uses during chi sao that are similar to TWC...

All of these things I've just mentioned:

1) the SLT
2) the Entry
3) the sidestepping footwork
4) the chi sao nuances

I've never seen any of these things anywhere in the Wing Chun world other than in TWC and HFY...

ON THE OTHER HAND....there are also some significant differences(ie.- the Blindside strategy: the TWC parallel-side preference IS LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY 180 degrees DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the HFY preference for the cross side(body) preference as a starting position and strategy....the main thrust of all of my posts on this thread regarding the jab/cross defense...

And since I firmly believe that the TWC "formula" - in this regard...is not only different...but also SUPERIOR...to the HFY cross side approach (or formula)...

THEREFORE I KNOW OF AT LEAST ONE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS.

As a final note (are you listening carl Douglas ?)...I intend to read the book and will probably find more differences between the two systems - both major and minor differences.

And who knows ? Maybe even some interesting and solid moves, strategies, concepts...that I've never seen before.

But as of right now...I stand by everything I've said regarding seeing virtually nothing that is new to me.