Weng Chun

[TansauNg]

i've heard that Chi Sim Weng Chun is the original system deriving directly from red boat from wich derived others system of WingTsun...is said tha GranMaster Yip Man studied it but only a little bit bacause it was praticed in Hong Kong by sifu Chu Ching Man and sifu Wai Yan .....

it is said that Yip Man only knew the 30% of the system (weng chun).....he didn't learn nothing from Leung Bik ....

I would like to know something moro about it.....i've read rene ritchie's book in which he talk about this system......

[Da_Moose]

You can find more information at the following sites.

http://www.wengchun.net/index_e.htm

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/chi_sim_history.php

There is also another forum similar to this at:

www.hfy108.com that has a specific board for Chi Sim that might interest you.

I hope these help!

[reneritchie]

Weng Chun Kuen probably accounts for the dummy (physical dummy itself) and pole in what became Wing Chun, but it is more likely *a* parent, rather than the sole parent. Many Wing Chun people also had contact with Weng Chun people and vice versa over the generations, so there is a lot of cross polination in some lineages.

Contact Andreas Hoffmann for more.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And take what you've been told about percentages with a grain of salt...

From Chu Chong Man - 30%

From Leung Bik..............0%

These are still open questions.

[Phil Redmond]

Victor, there is also the 'rumor' that Yip Man made up the Leung Bik story. You and I both know that Sifu Cheung believes what Yip Man told him. We have seen the passion in his eyes when he talks about Yip Man. He was a young impressionable boy at the time that revered (sp)? the man that took in into his home after his father kicked him out. Yip Man 'could' have told him the Leung Bik story (that was already popluar), in order to explain the different teachings he gave him when they were home after class. We may never know. That's just my thoughts on the subject.
Phil

[Ultimatewingchun]

I firmly believe that also, Phil.

I don't believe that William Cheung learned TWC in the territories (or wherever)...from some mysterious person(s). And then said that it came from Yip Man.

I've seen the passion in his eyes when he's talked about Yip Man, which as you said...makes me believe him when he says that he learned it from Yip Man.

But where Yip Man got it exactly?

Who knows?

I tend to think that is was a combination of what Yip Man learned from Leung Bik and from Chu Chong Man.

Which differed from what Yip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun.

But again...who really knows?

[Phil Redmond]

Hey Victor, I have a chop made for me by Moy Yat. He engraved the characters, "Gou Yahn" on my chop. I always thought that it meant 'tall man' because Moy Yat was pretty tall and the Cantonese word for tall is gou. Here's what I learned when I went to Sifu Hoffman's site. You're never to old to learn eh?

"In Hong Kong’s martial arts community, Wai Yan is considered to be a “Go Yan”, often translated as “Superior Person.” A Go Yan is someone that is well respected and revered, . . . . . "
Phil

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Weng Chun Kuen probably accounts for the dummy (physical dummy itself) and pole in what became Wing Chun, but it is more likely *a* parent, rather than the sole parent. Many Wing Chun people also had contact with Weng Chun people and vice versa over the generations, so there is a lot of cross polination in some lineages.




Rene,

as "a" parent of Wing Chun Kuen, issue.

since we now know that as a fact with evidents that Lee Man Mau was in the red boat. And Lee Practice White Crane Weng Chun. Since we also know the Wing Chun Kuen Kuit/po in the Red Boat time contain the terms from White CRane Weng Chun.

Since we also know that there a different Weng Chun co exist in the time of Red Boat.

IMHHHHHHHHo, we need to find out which Weng Chun who is who. or contact all the Weng Chun styles which existed in the Red Boat.

That is a facts we have to face and to be fair for everyone.

just some thoughts.

[taltos]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
since we now know that as a fact with evidents that Lee Man Mau was in the red boat.

I thought the ****herst back we can go with externally verifiable facts is Leung Jan.

What kind of proven, verifiable, factual, irrefutable evidence do we have of anyone on the Red Boats (aside from tradition)?

-Levi

[yellowpikachu]

Originally posted by taltos


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yellowpikachu
since we now know that as a fact with evidents that Lee Man Mau was in the red boat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







I thought the ****herst back we can go with externally verifiable facts is Leung Jan.

What kind of proven, verifiable, factual, irrefutable evidence do we have of anyone on the Red Boats (aside from tradition)?

-Levi


Simple, just read Chinese Qing dynasty history , Lee Man Mau is as real as Zhen Kuo Fan. and that Jacky Chan. :D you think Zhen Kou Fan and Jacky exist? :D

Public records and public common knowledge for Chinese who Studied Qing dynasty in 1850 about the Opera Actors revolution in China.


Rene might be even be able tell you where Lee Man Mau Died. who is his wife. ..you want to go dig his grave? The Qing might know too. :D


BTW. who is Hung Gam Biu? What is Tan Sau Ng's martial art? IS Yat Chaan really exist? Do you know What kind of proven, verifiable, factual, irrefutable evidence do we have of anyone on the Red Boats (aside from tradition)?

[taltos]

Originally posted by yellowpikachu
Public records and public common knowledge for Chinese who Studied Qing dynasty in 1850 about the Opera Actors revolution in China.

Public records is one thing... public common knowledge is something else entirely. So you are saying that I can DEFINTATELY find PROOF of Lee Man Mau?


Originally posted by yellowpikachu
you want to go dig his grave?

Why would you insult me by insinuating such a revolting, disrespectful thing? I find that heinous and very very uncool. It would be great for everyone if you would not make such horribly disrespectful statements. Thanks.


Originally posted by yellowpikachu
BTW. who is Hung Gam Biu? What is Tan Sau Ng's martial art? IS Yat Chaan really exist? Do you know What kind of proven, verifiable, factual, irrefutable evidence do we have of anyone on the Red Boats (aside from tradition)?

Uhm... calm down dude. First, I asked you. Second, I never claimed that they DEFINATELY existed. Therefore, I have no need to defend a position I never asserted. You, on the other hand...

[yellowpikachu]

Levi,

------
Public records is one thing... public common knowledge is something else entirely. So you are saying that I can DEFINTATELY find PROOF of Lee Man Mau?


Why would you insult me by insinuating such a revolting, disrespectful thing? ---Levi
----------

insult? you are soo sensitive.

What's wrong to dig grave to proof someone was there? according to your post above :D


Sorry if I hurt your feeling. Please answer me about Tan Sau Ng, Yat Chaan. Hung Gam Biu? tooo.



since I am in a rush to next flight.


Please relax and dont disturb others on this topic and direct it to something different.


so long.

Bye Bye!:D

[Vajramusti]

Same old same old POVs and related differences.

The quality of the wing chun that each one individually practices is the key to it's effectiveness. But then there is the question whether something one practices-how much of it - is wing chun.

No one on this list is as much of an authority on Ip man as Ip man himself.

As for Ip Man...he is not around to comment- but very clearly
among other things he told folks that

1. he met and learned from Leung Bik after he left Chan Wah's and his students to go to HK.

and

2. that weng chun and wing chun are different systems and that his wing chun is not weng chun..
Of course he had a relative who did weng chun who Ip Man visited. Martial artists often know people within and outside of their families who did some other style or styles.

Not paradoxical at all. So arguing with the late Ip Man is a bit pointless since he cannot comment further on what he has already said.

And- regarding William Cheung's claims on the roots of his considerably different mechanics- they make sense to TWC folks- why not leave it at that. Merely vociferously repeating the same old things dont make them any more objectively tue or convincing. Just makes for more noise
rather than information..

[taltos]

Originally posted by yellowpickachu
insult? you are soo sensitive.

Sorry if I hurt your feeling. Please answer me about Tan Sau Ng, Yat Chaan. Hung Gam Biu? tooo.

Please relax and dont disturb others on this topic and direct it to something different.

How do you know what I am and am not. Isn't that SPECULATING? For the record, I am not sensitive, and my feelings weren't hurt. I was INSULTED. There is a difference. I respect those who have gone before and see no reason to violate a cultural taboo in American AND Chinese culture and consider exhuming a body. It MIGHT be (and here I too am speculating, and I certainly could be wrong) that this was an attempt to take an honest question and make it emotionally charged in order to avoid it alltogether... or it may be something completely different. No worries... it's not about me anyway :-D

As to the Tan Sau Ng/Yat Chaan/Hung Gam Biu question... I'll make you a deal... since neither one of us owes the other anything, we're on equal footing here. But since you are asking me to prove a claim I never made, and I am asking for information about a claim you DID make, I'll answer your question when you answer mine. Besides, your question was just my question thrown back at me, and if I had the answer, I wouldn't waste bandwidth asking, because I would already know.


Originally posted by Vajramusti
The quality of the wing chun that each one individually practices is the key to it's effectiveness.

No one on this list is as much of an authority on Ip man as Ip man himself.

Well Said.

-Levi

[Ultimatewingchun]

"And- regarding William Cheung's claims on the roots of his considerably different mechanics- they make sense to TWC folks- why not leave it at that. Merely vociferously repeating the same old things dont make them any more objectively true or convincing. Just makes for more noise
rather than information..." (Joy)

To you it's noise - to Phil and I it's a conversation concerning what we believe at this time. Why not leave it at that?

.................................................. ........................................

And by the way, Phil.

I actually remember sitting in Moy Yat's little art room at the school on St. Paul's Place in Brooklyn around his table one day....with him and with you.

He was working on the chop for you. You only attended his school for just a few months so you and I hardly knew each other at that time. But I remember. Way back around 1977.

And it was "Go Yan".

He (Moy Yat) always signed his artwork as Moy Go Yan...(meaning "tall man").

He was 6' tall. (Big for a Chinese gentleman).

I spent an entire day once with Moy Yat at the Brooklyn Heights Art Show (on the outdoor Brooklyn Heights promenade) helping him sell (and look after) his artwork. Just the two of us that particular day. One of many times I heard him explain to people what "Go Yan" meant. To him...he was simply identifying himself as...Moy, the tall man.

[t_niehoff]

Rene used the word "probably" -- and that shows his wisdom. Nothing is sure about WCK history before the Red Boat era, and all we can do is draw conclusions based on oour available info. He also made a good point about cross-pollination -- we see that at work even today in WCK. It's very difficult, in a historical context, to ferret out those sorts of "contributions."

If we all stick to "possibilites" and "probabilites" when talking about Red Boat and before, I think everyone would get along a whole lot better. And even more importantly, if we stick to "possibilities" and "probablities" in our *thinking* (instead of "this is the truth"), we'll all be much happier.

[Phil Redmond]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Rene used the word "probably" -- and that shows his wisdom. Nothing is sure about WCK history before the Red Boat era, and all we can do is draw conclusions based on oour available info. He also made a good point about cross-pollination -- we see that at work even today in WCK. It's very difficult, in a historical context, to ferret out those sorts of "contributions."

If we all stick to "possibilites" and "probabilites" when talking about Red Boat and before, I think everyone would get along a whole lot better. And even more importantly, if we stick to "possibilities" and "probablities" in our *thinking* (instead of "this is the truth"), we'll all be much happier.
Terence, that last paragraph should be hung up in ALL WCK schools.
PR

[kj]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
And even more importantly, if we stick to "possibilities" and "probablities" in our *thinking* (instead of "this is the truth"), we'll all be much happier.

So true on many levels. Perhaps that's why I'm so happy. :)

Regards,
- kj

[reneritchie]

Why was this thread hijacked by tired feuds and positionings?

Lee Man Mau is historical figure written about in Chinese and Western history books. He was leader of the Red Junks during the Red Turban Rebellion, and was trained in White Crane.

No one today really knows what the WCK ancestors on the Red Junks knew. Wong Wah-Bo, Leung Yee-Tai, and Dai Fa Min Kam (and anyone else who played a 'martial' role) would have at least had to have had intense martial arts training, although focused on performance rather than application. Since this type of MA isn't much like WCK, it stands to reason there were other influences on their practical MA (they did, after all, have to defend their boats and protect themselves).

Again, my personal theory remains that Tan Sao Ng passed down the performance MA of the traditional plays and Northern Fist (Shaolin) while an early form (not yet as organized or choreographed) of Weng Chun White Crane came down the migration routes same as the Societies and ended up being trained on the boats by people such as Lee Man-Mao.

We know the above 2 people were on the boats (albeit one generations after the other), and we know the least of what MA they knew (Opera & Shaolin, and White Crane, though they could have known more).

The rest is still up for grabs. Did the Hakka involved cross-train? Did the return migration from Sichuan add something to the mix? Did the linear choreography of Tan Sao Ng's Shaolin formalize the Everyone will have their theories. Certainly the one true secret lineage from Shaolin, and the ultimate hybrid super art of Snake from Sichuan and the Crane from Fujian have their own Romantic appeals, but belief absent real proof (we have no 8mm films, no complete manuals or registers from that time) are just that--beliefs. Personal, entitled, and a strange thing to spend so much time bickering over.

[Vajramusti]

Toleration of different points of view is surelya problem on this thread as in many others.

Explorations in history are not the hard sciences but it can provide insights for those who care. For some insights into current practice could be possible- varies with individuals.

The wc world is full of the symbolism of the snake and crane...Hendrik's analysis of that has been an interesting
and informative journey imo. There ae some insights into structure and dynamics for the future.

[taltos]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Lee Man Mau is historical figure written about in Chinese and Western history books. He was leader of the Red Junks during the Red Turban Rebellion, and was trained in White Crane.

No one today really knows what the WCK ancestors on the Red Junks knew. Wong Wah-Bo, Leung Yee-Tai, and Dai Fa Min Kam (and anyone else who played a 'martial' role) would have at least had to have had intense martial arts training,

We know the above 2 people [Tan Sao Ng and Lee Man-Mao] were on the boats (albeit one generations after the other), and we know the least of what MA they knew (Opera & Shaolin, and White Crane, though they could have known more).

The rest is still up for grabs...belief absent real proof (we have no 8mm films, no complete manuals or registers from that time) are just that--beliefs.

Thank you. That was exactly what I was looking for. I was NOT looking for invitations to go late night grave-digging and defensive questions about claims I've NEVER made.

Rene, thanks for doing what thus far couldn't be done and taking my question for what it was - a question - and offering usable information. Much appreciated.

I have a follow-up question... it has been said by a few people that as far back as we can go reliably is Leung Jan, yet Tan Sao Ng and Lee Man-Mao are prior to that. Is it that Leung Jan is as far back as can be historically verified as practicing WC? It seems that would make the most sense.

-Levi

[reneritchie]

Leung Jan lived (barely) into the 20th century, and so 'touched' the generation that popularized WCK, either in person or through the novels that were written about him. Many, many people knew about him, or had grandparents that had met him, or something. Many more new of him. He was 'close'.

We can probably be fairly sure there was a Wong Wah-Bo, as both Leung Jan and Fok Bo-Chuen mentioned him. The others get a little more blurry, and before them? It was troubled times, actors used stage-names and were not well considered in society (akin to butchers, prostitutes, and beggars) and Cantonese Opera was never written about to the extent of Beijing Opera. Lee Man-Mao was famous as their leader, but the names of his followers don't seem to be mentioned in the same books. Maybe they were recorded somewhere, and the records survived, and one day a scholar will explore them more thoroughly and decide to include the other actors. Maybe not. I hope they do.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello,


Cool topic.

Just as a bit of input for this topic I can tell you I have a series of chinese soap opera flicks that is based on the life of Leung Jan but also has a fair ammount of Lee Man Mau in it. He was the leader of the rebellion in these old flicks. He was well known and thats why there is a lot of info. out on him. Books movies etc..


Regards,

[CFT]

Jim,

I'd steer clear of those Chinese soap operas for historical accuracy. They're probably highly entertaining (certainly were when I was growing up) but they tend to take liberties with the facts. Heck, scriptwriters have even mucked around with the storylines of wuxia fiction for entertainment purposes.

[Jim Roselando]

CFT,


Its not about historical accuracy! Its just another source that shows how well know this man was and what he was known for! Just like lots of stories are made/written about from many other famous people.

Lee Man Mao was known for his activities in the revolution!


Regards,

[t_niehoff]

I think it important to distinguish between proven facts and hypothetical conclusions. For example, there is no proof Wong Wah Bo ever existed. We have oral traidition from LJ and FBC that both were taught by WWB, and the similarlity between the teaching of both LJ and FBC support the idea that there was a connection between the two. So we can IMO properly CONCLUDE that both *may* have actually learned from WWB; but that conclusion isn't proof -- it is a conclusion based on certain evidence and assumptions.

Let's say tomorrow someone finds the WCK scrolls -- at is shows (and for the sake of argument, let's say it is unquestionably accurate) that LJ and FBC were training brothers, and developed WCK on their own, that they concocted the story of the Red Boats, WWB, WCK coming from Shaolin, etc. to provide legitimacy in a culture that reveres tradition. Would this new info in any way change your practice? Or your application? Would this revelation illegitimize your martial art?

History can be an interesting topic, but it has its limitations.

[canglong]

originally posted by t_niehoff
History can be an interesting topic, but it has its limitations.Part of the limitations you speak of Terence are due in part because of the blending of history and personal information you seem to lack a sensitivity to recognize. If I have Wang Wah Bo's birth certificate, red sash, and an authentic kuen kuit I am in no way obligated to share it with anyone when I have something of value to me but all you see is something to move you along in your research or training that you could later misuse or misrepresent.

[t_niehoff]

canglong,

This goes back to the issue of what may be true vs. what is proven -- I can accept that someone may have "secret" historical information that they don't want to "share" (although I think that's a rather silly position). In that event, however, it means that any claim they make remains unproven. And these people shouldn't be surprised that others won't accept their assurances that their closely-guarded "secrets" exist.

[anerlich]

I was NOT looking for invitations to go late night grave-digging

Awwww, you guys are no fun.

:( ;)


If I have Wang Wah Bo's birth certificate, red sash, and an authentic kuen kuit

Woo hoo. I've got a complete set of Tool CD's, and about 2/3 of a set of Sydney2000 Olympics beer coasters. and Rigan Machado signed my copy of "The Essence of Brazilian Jiu Jitsu" when he came to Sydney!

[t_niehoff]

canglong,

Let's just say for the sake of argument that Hendrik can prove that WCK derives from White Crane/Ermei, and has shown me the proof -- but he doesn't want to share it with everyone because some people might "misuse or misunderstand" that information? So I tell you to trust me, the evidence exists but we just don't want to show it to you. Or let's say for the sake of argument that I can prove that Wang Ming never existed and that HFY is relatively modern but the information that can prove it is secret and I don't want to share it? But I tell you to trust me.

Well, I think you'd be quite right to say "You shouldn't make claims like these if you either can't prove it or aren't willing to prove it." And you'd be right. Similarly, when some folks claim that they can prove their theory of the history of WCK is true or that their lineage is the oldest or original or that others are wrong, I say they shouldn't be saying things like that if they either can't prove it or aren't willing to prove it.

And quite frankly, I don't believe folks when they give excuses for not wanting to prove things -- IME if they can prove it, they are more than willing to prove it. It's only when they can't prove things that suddenly they've "mysterious" reasons for not proving them.

[woosow]

Tony,

When one can literallly download the unarmed combat training manuals for the US military, when one has unfettered access to training in the cutting edge of unarmed combat worldwide, what need is there for secrets?

Secrets of what? Systems which had their heyday 150 years ago?

What are the elite fighters of today training in?
What are the miltiary such as the US Army training in?

It isn't some secret hidden system. Such things are unproven in the ring, on the street, and in combat of TODAY.

Having a deceased person's birth certificate, clothing or weapons doesn't do anything for a practitioner in the present. They are artifacts of the past.



Originally posted by canglong
Part of the limitations you speak of Terence are due in part because of the blending of history and personal information you seem to lack a sensitivity to recognize. If I have Wang Wah Bo's birth certificate, red sash, and an authentic kuen kuit I am in no way obligated to share it with anyone when I have something of value to me but all you see is something to move you along in your research or training that you could later misuse or misrepresent.

[reneritchie]

I have, right this very minute, cold fusion running perfectly right here on my desk. Limitless energy. Zero Point. Contained Singularity.

How I done it is a secret, but trust me, I done done it!

[canglong]

Terence,
Keeping things in proper perspective is key. For example I could easily ask you to prove that Robert Chu exist. You know very well before you start to convince someone otherwise they could easily be of a mind set as to accept no amount of evidence as enough. If you brought Robert Chu to them they could easily say that it was not him. Bring his parents they are imposters, provide a DNA test, the test was doctored. On and on and on.

Another example of perspective when I asked David how your WC lineage progressed he said through himself, Robert Chu, Hawkins Cheung to Yip Man. By not indicating Robert's Sifu Lei Me San(sp) your perspective would seem to indicate that somehow this information is secretive unto your family alone, insider information or dispensed at your families discretion. Robert does not credit San Sifu either on his website he really only has a link to Hawkins Cheung website not ever really offering him the title of Sifu and speaks more to the evidence of his medical training than any martial art but does that mean that his training never happend it is all a matter of perspective.

[t_niehoff]

canglong,

You just don't get it -- or want to get it. I agree that my post was out of line, but I was making it to prove a point: that folks shouldn't make those sorts of proclamations if they aren't willing to prove it or can't prove it. And what goes for me, goes for you, goes for the VTM, and goes for everyone. It's fine to say "we believe this or that" or "our oral tradition is such and such" or "we have this theory" but when you start saying things like "our WCK is the original WCK" and "our history is true and correct and everyone else is wrong" then you put yourself in the position of either being willing and able to prove it or you should expect to be called on it. And to argue that "we'll share our conclusions -- that one's about how we knwo the truth -- but not share the info that verifies/proves it is true" is disingenuous. Then you have the temerity to chide me for challenging those things you've decided so generously to "share" (about how HFY is correct and everyone else is wrong) when I say that may be true, but you need to prove it.

And it certainly calls into question why someone or some group would want to "share" such things in the first place. Are you doing it to "help" the WCK community? To lead us all into enlightenment? Or is the VTM just concerned with the "truth"? Concerned enough, it seems, to tell us how HFY's history is correct and the rest of us wrong, but not concerned enough to show us the info that verifies those claims! Or, is it that these things are just marketing, just ways of attracting students, just ways of making HFY sound better than competing (for students) lineages? Very often folks making marketing claims can't prove them either. Now I'm not saying that is what HFY/VTM is doing but your actions certainly make it look like that.

You last post shows how bereft your arguments are -- it is a simple matter to prove Robert exists, that he knows WCK, and that he taught me (go to his seminar in San Diego and ask him yourself!, look at his driver's license, etc.). I can introduce you to lots of people, many on this very forum that have met him (even folks that don't like him and wouldn't have reasons to lie), there are photos, videos, books, etc. You know, all those things that don't exist for Wang Ming. ;)

FWIW, David is correct about our lineage. Sure, Robert has studied with someone in the Moy Yat family, but he's also studied with many WCK instructors, many in the Yip Man family, some outside of the Yip Man family. But he doesn't consider them all his "sifu" -- the one person who, in his heart, he considers has been the most significant in his development. (Similarly, if you asked Victor or Phil who their sifu was or their lineage, they would indicate Chueng not Moy or Leung, because while Cheung was not their first WCK instructor it is his training methodology they follow). In CWC, for example, Robert lists all these people he has studied with.

The bottom line is this: the VTM/HFY should understand that folks outside of HFY/VTM aren't going to accept their historical conclusions as true if they aren't willing and able to prove them (to have them independently verified). They can come up with all the excuses in the world for why they don't want to provide proof, and all that does is increase our skepticism.

[Jim Roselando]

T,


Excellent post!

[reneritchie]

Sometimes it's like a child dealing with a father. (With apologies to Waterson) The child asks where the sun goes at night, and the father says to Arizona. The child doesn't think that makes sense--the sun is too big. The father smiles and says the sun is only about the size of a quarter, and because it sets in Arizona, that's why Arizona is so dry and hot.

The child is inclined to believe the father. The child might even get into fights at school with other children who laugh at the story. How dare they, the child might think. The story came from the father. The sun's only the size of a quarter, and why else would Arizona be so hot?

But, if an uncle or friend of the father's overhears the father telling the story, when the child leaves, they may roll their eyes, knowing the utter BS of it. Eventually the child will learn better, innocence will be lost, the 'wisdom' of the father put into its proper place, and the fights in the schoolyard will seem silly.

[canglong]

it is a simple matter to prove Robert exists, that he knows WCK, and that he taught me (go to his seminar in San Diego and ask him yourself!, look at his driver's license, etc.). I can introduce you to lots of people, many on this very forum that have met him (even folks that don't like him and wouldn't have reasons to lie), Terence, that's a start do you have something more......

[Jim Roselando]

Tony (canglong),


Why dont you share some video footage with us all of yourself? Some of us (ooops "replace some with "a few") of us were willing to share. Why not participate and show us your Shaolin WCK in action? Dont be shy!


:)


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The bottom line is this: the VTM/HFY should understand that folks outside of HFY/VTM aren't going to accept their historical conclusions as true if they aren't willing and able to prove them (to have them independently verified). They can come up with all the excuses in the world for why they don't want to provide proof, and all that does is increase our skepticism."


Tony:

This is a reasonable argument that Terence makes. That doesn't mean that I'm interested in holding HFY people to the fire until they "prove" something historical...but it is a reasonable argument.

I can't "prove" that TWC was taught to Yip Man by Leung Bik - but I know the system exists...and that it's different than what I learned from Moy Yat, for example.

Lineage and historical arguments are basically a dead-end street.
If Hendrik (or somebody else) can someday provide proof that Ng Mui existed - or that White Crane and Snake style people invented Wing Chun...fine.

But until people can offer verifiable and reasonable proofs and evidence to support their claims and theories - then actually SHOWING and DOING the systems in question is all we have.

(And even after someone provides proof of anything....the actual systems themselves WILL STILL BE all we really have.)

Hence my disdain for Hendrik's constant barrage of threads and posts on all of this.

So in the final analysis - Jim Roselando's suggestion is the best one...why not put up some video?

We should all be doing that.

And you HFY guys should also come to Cleveland in May, imo.

[TansauNg]

Ciao a tutti!

What i would like to know is:

WING CHUN (wt OR vt) IS 30% OF WENG CHUN? if this is right wing chun & weng chun are the same martial art?

GM Yip Man had studied Weng Chun?

[Ultimatewingchun]

There are some indications that point to the fact that Yip Man might have learned some Weng Chun from his uncle, Chu Chong Man. (I, for one, certainly tend to believe that it's probable).

But we don't really know for sure.

They are two different arts - but do seem to be related to each other.

As to the 30%...

Don't know. Could be.

Again...no clear evidence to put a number on it.

[hunt1]

Victor while I usually stay out of this since Hendricks last thread seems to have been removed I will offer you this.

There are government records that mention Ng Mui as being real and exsisting in the late 1700s in addition Ng Mui is listed as a 5th generation student of the Fong Chi Niang white crane line. She is lsted in the written records of difefrent white crane lines in Taiwan, China and S.E. Asia. These records are a couple hundred years old and the writing may go back to Fong herself or at least her first generation students. there are about 8 styles of White Crane that trace back to Fong.
These records were made long before anyone decided to market wing chun or white crane for that matter.

There are also some very strong physical indications of the tie between wing chun and white crane. If you ever get a change to see the form Bai He Ba Fen you will recognize the wing chun. This is the form ofr inch power in white crane.
If you see Mei Hia He white crane plum flower hands you will think you are looking at the forst part of SLT. Many other physical ties as well.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Okay, Hunt...

If those gov't records exist - that would be a good piece of evidence to build the case that Hendrik tries to make.

[hunt1]

Victor over a year ago ,maybe 2 I posted on here that anyone truly interested in martial art history would read and translate the book "History of the martial Arts of Guangdong (sp)".
This was a book published in China in 1980 that was written by over 100 Chineese historians that went through hundreds of years of government records in the area trying to trace the martial arts myths and legends. Wing Chun was just one small chapter in the book. Anyone truly doing research in China should and would track down this book. I have only ever seen a small translation. I can tell you when it was published it ****sed off many in the martial arts community in china and hong kong. Kinda burst a few bubbles .

[Phil Redmond]

Terence wrote:
>> " . . . You last post shows how bereft your arguments are -- it is a simple matter to prove Robert exists, that he knows WCK, and that he taught me (go to his seminar in San Diego and ask him yourself!, look at his driver's license, etc.). I can introduce you to lots of people, many on this very forum that have met him (even folks that don't like him and wouldn't have reasons to lie), there are photos, videos, books, etc. You know, all those things that don't exist for Wang Ming. . . "<<

I know Robert and have met with him on a few occaisons in NYC's Chinatown. So he does exist . . .grin.
That was a good post Terence. It was to the point and not offensive.
PR

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hunt:

I don't need any convincing that White Crane style had something to do with Wing Chun.

One look at their bong sao (about 30 years ago) did the trick for me.

And I've seen some of what Hendrik has posted recently of some guys doing a White Crane form...no doubt it looks a lot like SLT at certain intervals.

Never had any problem believing the "GIST" of the 5 elders story - with White Crane and Snake style being two of them.

Clearly bil sao and bil jee look like Snake hands to me (by way of example).

But again...for all practical purposes - don't see where all this is going?

[hunt1]

Victor,

I dont think its going anywhere improtant. For those like me ,we just enjoy history, have a BA and MA in it. Others seem to feel attacked, history has always been this way. From governments on down no one likes facts to get in the way of their story or what they are selling.

[TansauNg]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
There are some indications that point to the fact that Yip Man might have learned some Weng Chun from his uncle, Chu Chong Man. (I, for one, certainly tend to believe that it's probable).

But we don't really know for sure.

They are two different arts - but do seem to be related to each other.

As to the 30%...

Don't know. Could be.

Again...no clear evidence to put a number on it.


this is exactly what i've heard...GGM Yip Man had studied wing chun that is only a "portion" of weng chun.....than he started to learn weng chun from Chu Chong Man and Wai Yan.....but for a "secret" reason he was kicked out from the class...

It soud reasonable...or not?

check out this web page: www.iwka-wengchun.com

[Wayfaring]

Terence,


The bottom line is this: the VTM/HFY should understand that folks outside of HFY/VTM aren't going to accept their historical conclusions as true if they aren't willing and able to prove them (to have them independently verified). They can come up with all the excuses in the world for why they don't want to provide proof, and all that does is increase our skepticism.

I do not speak in any official capacity, but my understanding of HFY history is that there is an oral history and some written family documents that most of which haven't been made public. Two lines from the hou kuet - or oral idiom that have been published in MKF are:

saam dim yat sin ding yung san
Three Points, One Line, Establish the Original Nature

ng dou luk muhn fa kin kwan
Five Ways and Six Gates, Influence the Universe

Can family documents be historically and independantly verified? Until we know different we can assume not. Can oral idioms or traditions be historically and independantly verified. Again, until we find different we can assume not. Is this a huge issue?

My understanding of the HFY lineage is it was a secret society. Find me historical and independantly verified records of CIA operations in the world for the last 200 years. Oh, and good luck.

There are certain intersections in family history with independant verified historical records. Family history shows Cheung Ng as in HFY lineage - Tan Sau Ng. We share this and are met with condescending and obnoxious statements and demands that these are not "independantly verifiable". Well no duhhhhhhhh.
It's a family history of a secret society. There was a Hung Fa Wui Gun (Red Flower Association) that you can read about in Cantonese Opera history. Family history says this was a public front for a private secret society of HFY members. Any "independantly verifiable" public figures connected have most likely all have long since been executed.

Does this mean that HFY is making all the "excuses in the world"? You judge. Is there skepticism? Boy howdy - read through this thread. Is there attitude? Plenty of it. Do we have to tolerate all the nice little stories about cold fusion and children's playgrounds by our oh so talented parable writer Rene? It seems so. Do people like Terence call HFY a "marketing invention by Garrett Gee?" Yes they do. It's ridiculous. Anybody with any reasonable background in martial arts can recognize it as a system, even from reading the MKF book.

For those more balanced and objective - HFY is a family lineage of WCK that used to be a secret society that is now public. Is that so complicated? Is it "oldest", or "most perfect"? Who cares? Isn't it all about how any system/teacher/fellow students helps you develop your kung fu fighting skills and personal character?

2 cents out.

Rgds,
Dave Milner

[Wayfaring]

Victor,

The first martial art I studied as a teenager was a Shaolin 5 animal kungfu called Vo Lam that had migrated to Viet Nam.

In WCK I recognize very clearly crane and snake influences. I also think the phoenix eye fist in SLT may be leopard, but I can't remember - I think crane may have that too.

In the general Shaolin training we've studied, there are very clear influences of tiger and dragon.

Either way in my opinion both arts clearly have animal kungfu influences.

Rgds,
Dave

[t_niehoff]

Hi Dave,

You seem like a sensible person, so let's look at your post:

You wrote:

I do not speak in any official capacity, but my understanding of HFY history is that there is an oral history and some written family documents that most of which haven't been made public. Two lines from the hou kuet - or oral idiom that have been published in MKF are:

saam dim yat sin ding yung san
Three Points, One Line, Establish the Original Nature

ng dou luk muhn fa kin kwan
Five Ways and Six Gates, Influence the Universe

Can family documents be historically and independantly verified? Until we know different we can assume not. Can oral idioms or traditions be historically and independantly verified. Again, until we find different we can assume not. Is this a huge issue?

**Not unless folks claim that they do verify something.

My understanding of the HFY lineage is it was a secret society. Find me historical and independantly verified records of CIA operations in the world for the last 200 years. Oh, and good luck.

**And as I explained on the HFY foum, that may be perfectly true but it then leaves HFY in the position of not being able to prove their history is true. Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't true, but that it can't be proven. And since it can't be proven, it could also be untrue. So I don't mind the VTM coming forward with theories or saying HFY oral tradition is such and such, but I do object to them calling it "the truth" or saying they've verified these things.

There are certain intersections in family history with independant verified historical records. Family history shows Cheung Ng as in HFY lineage - Tan Sau Ng. We share this and are met with condescending and obnoxious statements and demands that these are not "independantly verifiable". Well no duhhhhhhhh.

**But that's like me claiming I'm related to George Washington -- perhaps my oral traditon does link me to GW, and he's a real person to boot! So what? To prove my relationship to him, I need to prove every step of the line -- lineage -- from me to him. Without doing that, I can't prove I'm related to him.

It's a family history of a secret society. There was a Hung Fa Wui Gun (Red Flower Association) that you can read about in Cantonese Opera history. Family history says this was a public front for a private secret society of HFY members. Any "independantly verifiable" public figures connected have most likely all have long since been executed.

**Look, I can claim to have been taught the "real WCK" by a blind buddhist monk that asked me to keep it secret. I can say anything; I can come up with all kinds os stories. How do you know which is true and which isn't? Proof. Independently verifieabel proof. Lacking that, what can you say other than that I haven't been able to prove where my WCK comes from?

Does this mean that HFY is making all the "excuses in the world"? You judge. Is there skepticism? Boy howdy - read through this thread. Is there attitude? Plenty of it. Do we have to tolerate all the nice little stories about cold fusion and children's playgrounds by our oh so talented parable writer Rene? It seems so. Do people like Terence call HFY a "marketing invention by Garrett Gee?" Yes they do. It's ridiculous. Anybody with any reasonable background in martial arts can recognize it as a system, even from reading the MKF book.

**And so what? That seems to suggest that you believe HFY is a system, that system had to come from somewhere (and so far I'm with you) and that proves the oral history (it doesn't). If my WCK is a "system" does it prove Yip Man's oral history is true -- that it came from Ng Mui? Of course not. Yes, I bring up marketing since I wonder why folks like Benny would promote HFY oral tradition, which can't be independently verified past Garrett, as "the truth", as "the original WCK", etc. except to promote HFY (which he teaches for money). When Leung Ting describes WT as "developed by Yip Man as the ultimate expression of WCK", for example, he's marketing. He may believe it, but it's still marketing.

For those more balanced and objective - HFY is a family lineage of WCK that used to be a secret society that is now public. Is that so complicated?

**Let' be more accurate -- HFY is a family lineage that *claims* to be a secret society that is now public or HFY is a family lineage whose oral tradition says is used to be a secret society. Is that so complicated? Your way of phrasing it suggests it is true (which hasn't been proven); my way of phrasing it leaves it open as to whether it is true or not.

Is it "oldest", or "most perfect"? Who cares? Isn't it all about how any system/teacher/fellow students helps you develop your kung fu fighting skills and personal character?

**And that's been one of my points, that history doesn't validate a martial art -- personal results do.

[reneritchie]

Secret Societies were nothing like the CIA. People might say that now to make them sound more compelling, but there is a lot of information available of Secret Societies during the High Qing. They kept records. They even made copies of registers. They would sometimes even hand these out when they started new 'franchises'. They weren't that professional. They didn't succeed in overthrowing even a degenerating Qing empire, after all.

Again, this is a problem when martial marketing is mixed with history. In real historical works, such as Murray's Tian Di Hui, you can find the history of several Secret Societies, who their founders were, early members, what actitivies they engaged in, etc. There are several known stories about famous teachers knowing passing on fictitious stories throughout the history of MA. It was, and is, a way for them to attract and retain students.

Another thing is that students of a particular lineage should also not assume that what they're told is accurate, nor what the people who tell them actually believe. They are not always treated as peers, and are not always privy to the actual beliefs, suspicions, motivations, etc. of those who tell the tales.

If you can believe that the other person's story (be in Ng Mui or Cheung Ng or Jee Shim) may not be accurate, despite many famous and accomplished sifu transmitting it, integrity would suggest each and every story be treated the same. Oral stories are not history, whether it's your sifu or someone else's who tells them.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Dave:

You do seem like a reasonable fellow...and I like your posts.

But Terence's last post was very solid.

I can't dispute anything he said.

If Benny (and Garrett??) had presented the HFY story without claiming that this is the "verified truth"...then no one would have (or should have) objected.

But marketing is marketing.

William Cheung did a similar thing with TWC....didn't he?

Claimed that TWC was the original this...from Leung Bik to Yip Man to William that...but without proof. Just circumstantial evidence (ie. - TWC is different).

But that's not proof.

And of course - Leung Ting did a similar thing back in the 1970's...as Terence pointed out.

You know what, Dave?....A little less marketing and a lot more Wing Chun ACTION get-togethers would go a long way toward ending needless debates about history and lineage.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey guys!


This is kind of out of the blue but since we are talking about marketing and other stuff I want to throw this in!

If Jee Shim is the source of a possible off-shoot version of Weng Chun does that mean he learned it from Ng Mui? Since Ng Mui is supposed to be the founder of White Crane "Weng Chun" and in China there is only one source of Weng Chun and that comes from her so-called branch?

So, one thing I dont understand is if there is a Jee Shim version of her Weng Chun then would it bother the people who believe in that person/story to know that Bak Mei was reported to "Kill" Jee Shim in a fight?

Does that make any sense? Why market a story about someone who was known to have been killed?


:confused:

[duende]

**Sandman**
Posting deleted for being nothing but a long personal attack. Feel free to edit this and respond with intelligent discourse and logical counters to Rene's statements if you like. But none of the personal attacks please.

[Jim Roselando]

Duende wrote:


YOU are the one who should not assume what YOU'VE been told is accurate.


That goes for everyone! Right?

Rene is not one to believe anything. He does his homework. Research WCK lineages, histories, structure, etc. etc.. He was one of the very first people to to have a multi lineage web site with mainly info. from all sources. He reads and translates Chinese and has been to China so you should not point your finger at him. He is the last person to believe anything without looking into and then he still uses More likely/Less likely as he knows thats the most logical way to think!


Regards,

[reneritchie]

There was a story in IKF maybe 10 years ago about a school that called itself "Wudan". It had no link to Wudang or Wudang martial arts, but the name was famous and they wanted to attract people to their school, so they used the name.

Check out a yellow pages and you can probably find Shaolin Karate school, in Gi, doing Okinawan Pinan sets, and mixed up Kata. They use the name Shaolin because it makes them more compelling.

Some people say there never was a Ng Mui or Yim Wing-Chun, and the name was just used as a cover, or as a way to tie the art into the popular 10 000 Year Ching novel.

Again, it's nothing new or unique, but its something serious people who want to discuss the topic seriously need to understand.

Secret stories appeal to the child in all of us, and personally I enjoy a good episode of Alias now and then, but it's important to mentally make the separation between the stories certain sifu's spread, and what they might actually believe (which could be quite different), and what might actually have happened historically (which could also be quite different).

Personally, I have heard some sifu tell their students some fancy stories, only to have the studen leave, and someone ask the sifu if they really believe that stuff. The sifu would laugh, of course not, but he had his reasons, and the peers around his table understood them (even if they disagreed), yet the student who heard it might still go out and get into fights over it.

[Wayfaring]

You know, I guess I don't have a problem with WHAT Terence is saying about oral history being different than independantly verifiable written history. I just don't like the tone.

I can't speak to all the presentation of HFY history everywhere, but I can say what's been presented to me has been "here's the oral tradition", here's the research we did, and here's what we believe as a result. Not "it's absolutely true and completely verified, end of discussion."

So from my perspective, I'll say I'm likely to consider the oral tradition as it matches up with the system taught than to disbelieve it as the individuals character involved has been proven to me as well. Or until somebody has compelling proof that it is not true. That's a reasonable position. Those with compelling proof, not accusations, demands, unverified claims, please take this as an invitation to present such.

Terence,

**Not unless folks claim that they do verify something.

--- Oral traditions are a verification better than nothing, but don't carry as much weight as written independantly verifiable information. There exists possibilities that any oral tradition can be a tall story, and any written document can be a forgery.

** Long series of comments on how oral tradition doesn't really prove anything

--- Fine. It doesn't conclusively prove anything. Point conceded.

** And so what? That seems to suggest that you believe HFY is a system, that system had to come from somewhere (and so far I'm with you) and that proves the oral history (it doesn't).

--- I'm not saying because it is a complete system that proves oral history. I'm saying oral history is a reasonable explanation in lieu of anything better. And that for you to discount a reasonable explanation as a marketing ploy maybe is your slanted read on it - and it comes off as disrespectful and obnoxious.

**Let' be more accurate -- HFY is a family lineage that *claims* to be a secret society that is now public or HFY is a family lineage whose oral tradition says is used to be a secret society. Is that so complicated? Your way of phrasing it suggests it is true (which hasn't been proven); my way of phrasing it leaves it open as to whether it is true or not.

--- I can buy the second explanation about a family lineage whose oral tradition says it used to be a secret society. The first statement with *claims* sends a message that you think it's inaccurate or dishonest.

**And that's been one of my points, that history doesn't validate a martial art -- personal results do.

--- We agree on that point.

Rene,

I liked your last post a little better than your parables.

** Secret Societies were nothing like the CIA ...

--- They are in that they are both secret. Beyond that I'll defer to your research on secret societies - you seem to have more info there than I do.

** Again, this is a problem when martial marketing is mixed with history. In real historical works, such as Murray's Tian Di Hui, you can find the history of several Secret Societies, who their founders were, early members, what actitivies they engaged in, etc.

--- I haven't read that work but it sounds like it would be interesting in getting a flavor for secret societies and their history. It sounds like that one doesn't mention the Red Flower society. I'm not sure what that has to do with martial marketing, other than you believe that's what HFY is, maybe.

**Another thing is that students of a particular lineage should also not assume that what they're told is accurate...

--- I appreciate your concern. I try to study, grow, and maintain a balanced objective. I do strive to take people at face value until they prove I can't.

**Oral stories are not history, whether it's your sifu or someone else's who tells them.

--- I disagree with you on that point. Many written historical accounts were first oral traditions passed down through generations and then written down. Some were never written down. Especially when you're discussing periods of time before the printing press was invented and before photography was common.

I do have enough MA background where I wouldn't 'worship' a sifu to the point of non-objective evaluation. Just healthy respect and continued growth in the relationship.

Victor,

Appreciate the interaction.

***You know what, Dave?....A little less marketing and a lot more Wing Chun ACTION get-togethers would go a long way toward ending needless debates about history and lineage.

--- I'm with you on that. Unfortunately May this year won't work out for me, but I'll look toward another in the future.

Rgds,
Dave

[t_niehoff]

Hi Dave,

You wrote:

You know, I guess I don't have a problem with WHAT Terence is saying about oral history being different than independantly verifiable written history. I just don't like the tone.

***And I don't like the tone that I get from many in the VTM/HFY -- the indignant "how dare you!" How dare I suggest that HFY oral tradition isn't true, am I saying that Garrett is lying, etc. I'm trying to be as critically objective as I can be. Proof exists or it doesn't.

I can't speak to all the presentation of HFY history everywhere, but I can say what's been presented to me has been "here's the oral tradition", here's the research we did, and here's what we believe as a result. Not "it's absolutely true and completely verified, end of discussion."

***That's great, but I'm sure you have access to many of the VTM's articles, MKF, etc. Things are presented a bit differently there.

So from my perspective, I'll say I'm likely to consider the oral tradition as it matches up with the system taught than to disbelieve it as the individuals character involved has been proven to me as well. Or until somebody has compelling proof that it is not true. That's a reasonable position.

***You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But when anyone begins suggesting their belief is true, then it opens the can of worms and we need to start talking about proof. We don't accept things we're told as true because we can be told things that are untrue; we accept things that are proven to be true as true. The fact that the "system" is **in your estimation** *consistent* with the underlying oral tradition doesn't prove anything (WCK is also consistent with what Hendrik is saying, for example). Who has an oral tradition that is not consistent with their martial art? LOL!

Those with compelling proof, not accusations, demands, unverified claims, please take this as an invitation to present such.

***You miss the point -- we're not claiming anything, we're not claiming to know "the truth", or to have the "original WCK". It's up to the person making the claim to prove it. Just like if you say bigfoot exists -- it's up to you to prove it, not up to the world to prove you're wrong.

Terence,

**Not unless folks claim that they do verify something.

--- Oral traditions are a verification better than nothing, but don't carry as much weight as written independantly verifiable information. There exists possibilities that any oral tradition can be a tall story, and any written document can be a forgery.

***Oral traditions are the *claim* that is being evaluated. The claim doesn't prove itself.

** Long series of comments on how oral tradition doesn't really prove anything

--- Fine. It doesn't conclusively prove anything. Point conceded.

***And since it doesn't prove anything, we can't say it is true.

** And so what? That seems to suggest that you believe HFY is a system, that system had to come from somewhere (and so far I'm with you) and that proves the oral history (it doesn't).

--- I'm not saying because it is a complete system that proves oral history. I'm saying oral history is a reasonable explanation in lieu of anything better. And that for you to discount a reasonable explanation as a marketing ploy maybe is your slanted read on it - and it comes off as disrespectful and obnoxious.

***You have an oral history, I have a different oral history, someone else may have a third oral history -- and all are "reasonable explanations in lieu of anything better". But that doesn't make any one, or any at all, true.

**Let' be more accurate -- HFY is a family lineage that *claims* to be a secret society that is now public or HFY is a family lineage whose oral tradition says is used to be a secret society. Is that so complicated? Your way of phrasing it suggests it is true (which hasn't been proven); my way of phrasing it leaves it open as to whether it is true or not.

--- I can buy the second explanation about a family lineage whose oral tradition says it used to be a secret society. The first statement with *claims* sends a message that you think it's inaccurate or dishonest.

***"Claim" doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty -- people can make claims that they honestly believe, and those claims can prove to be true or not. When GG says he learned from Wang Ming, it is a claim, it is his say-so, and rests on nothing more. We can't independently verify it. Does that make it untrue? No. But if we want to talk about honesty, isn't more honest to say that "GG says or claims he learned from Wang Ming and there is no independent verification of that" than to say ""GG learned HFY from Wang Ming"? The latter actually suggests it is true (and doesn't even talk about the lack of proof). You may beleive it because you have a relationship with him; I reserve judgment and leave it at "unproven".

**And that's been one of my points, that history doesn't validate a martial art -- personal results do.

--- We agree on that point.

***Excellent.

[TansauNg]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Hi Dave,

........ When Leung Ting describes WT as "developed by Yip Man as the ultimate expression of WCK", for example, he's marketing. He may believe it, but it's still marketing.......



:confused: :eek: ...i've started Wing Chun not from Ting Organization...and it is really different from the other lineage...

[taltos]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
And I don't like the tone that I get from many in the VTM/HFY

You miss the point

I have a different oral history

I reserve judgment and leave it at "unproven".

Shouldn't you be saying...

And I -CLAIM THAT I- don't like the tone that I get from many in the VTM/HFY

-I CLAIM THAT- You miss the point

-I CLAIM THAT I- I have a different oral history

-I CLAIM THAT I- I reserve judgment and leave it at "unproven".

I mean, since you -SEEM- to be so sincere in your assertion that anything that cannot be independently verified must ALWAYS be stated in such a way as not to imply that it is absolutely true, then how can you make such blanket authoritarian statements about your own internal monologues when they can never be accurately and independently verified?

hmmmm... OR, maybe we are just arguing semantics PAST each other and should drop the mountains out of molehills.

As far as I know, most of these arguements stem from stetements that were made years ago (or at least months and months), by people who are not even on this forum. So are we going to continue to live in the past or are we going to GET OVER IT ALREADY?

-Levi

[t_niehoff]

Taltos, we're talking about history, not my impressions or the failure of some people, like you, to grasp the point. These aren't "molehills" -- we're discussing what it takes to prove historical claims, how oral tradition is not "the truth", how it takes more to prove lineage than claims, etc. Perhaps this is obvious to someone with your profound intellect, but apparently others haven't found it so.

[Ultimatewingchun]

As a matter of fact...Levi IS a pretty smart guy.

.................................................. ......................................

But again - the history/lineage arguments are overdone.

Are you coming to Cleveland, Levi?

What about you, Terence?

[duende]

***Sandman***

More personal attack junk deleted.

[Jim Roselando]

Duende/Taltos,


Why dont you guys send in a clip of yourselves doing some WCK? Let put all this politics/history/etc. on the side burner and just share! You guys are some of the most vocal of the HFY team on this board so why not share some footage of yourselves doing your Shaolin WCK so we can see how you generate power and or recieve power!

I asked Canglong but like 99% of the people I have asked to share anything they either totally ignore it (as he did) or they say its useless.

We all know how proud you guys are of your art (and rightfully so "we all are love what we do"). Why not show us some live examples of your WCK expression!


Dont be shy!


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

Duende:

I find the existence of secret kung fu societies In China not only possible...but probable.

But because things were kept secret - much cannot be verified...

and much can be bull5hitted about.

This is a dilemma that can't be denied.

So we can only go by what we see. And take everything else with a grain of salt.

That's just the way it is.

You've got to understand that.

Don't you?

[taltos]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Taltos, we're talking about history, not my impressions or the failure of some people, like you, to grasp the point. These aren't "molehills" -- we're discussing what it takes to prove historical claims, how oral tradition is not "the truth", how it takes more to prove lineage than claims, etc. Perhaps this is obvious to someone with your profound intellect, but apparently others haven't found it so.

Wait. "the failure of some people, like you, to grasp the point" followed just TWO SENTENCES LATER by "Perhaps this is obvious to someone with your profound intellect".

So which is it... did I grasp the point or didn't I?

It has been my experience and is my opinion (my "claim," if you will) that people who contradict themselves in the short span of THREE SENTENCES are usually not people capable of consistent, logical thought, they are simply prone to knee-jerk emotional responses when it appears they are loosing face in the public.

But since you MIGHT (no assumptions here) have misinterpreted my post, or you "with your profound intellect" understood the point, but others might not have, I'll rephrase:

* The contentions that SEEM to be causing this ruckus were made IN THE PAST and were made by people who are not even on this forum.

* The HFY have, to my knowledge, NEVER made such claims.

* The VTM may have stated their conclusions in such a way that people may have misinterpreted it, but the VTM and the HFY are two different things. For example, I am a member of my family, and I am also a member of the Arizona State Alumni Organization. I speak for neither, and if someone were to take something I said and ascribe it to the official belief of either group, the sheer rediculousness of the assertion would probably be readily apparent. Yet this seems to be the case here. But wait.... if something that the VTM said is assumed to be also the official stance of the HFY, then since I, my Sifu, and my Sigung have all three studied Chi Sim and Yip Man as well, then I suppose we should consider those statements the official position of those two lineages as well. And since you studied from Chu Sifu, who studied from Hawkins Cheung Sifu, who studied from Yip Man, then don't we agree? Oh wait... that's right... because what one person or oranization says only applies to THEM, and not those they are associated with. THAAAAAT'S RIGHT. My Bad.

* IF (please note the "if" because I am not assuming) the heart of your argument is that if something cannot be independently verified then it must not be stated as a fact, and the way the VTM has stated things in the past seemed to be being stated as if they were facts, then my admittedly satirical point should not be moot, and to be fair it should apply accross the board. I mean, you DO think it is not just "molehills, so we should we not take care of it now and forevermore? Otherwise, who gets to speak for everyone and decided when the rule applies and when it does not? Also, to do any less could be to argue semantics, because if it applies in one situation and not in another, then it is nothing more than a "personal truth" or a "belief" anyway, and as such fits into exactly what we are trying to avoid.

Are we going to continue to go around and around about something that happened in the past, or are we going to move past it and into productive discussion? As for me, I'm all for productive discussion.

-Levi

[taltos]

Originally posted by Jim Roselando
[B]Why dont you guys send in a clip of yourselves doing some WCK?

You guys are some of the most vocal of the HFY team on this board so why not share some footage of yourselves doing your Shaolin WCK so we can see how you generate power and or recieve power!B]

Why don't I? Clips of me doing my WC exist. At every gathering, every friendship picnic, every seminar I've attended. Which, before anyone goes there, has been more than those hosted by my own school. Clips of HFY exist. I believe members of this forum who do not study HFY and are not members of the VTM has stated that they have such clips. Several of my Sisuk have participated in competitions (yes, I know... competitions) and have footage of such.

I don't consider myself vocal OR HFY. I am a person who studies HFY, but I also study Yip Man. I represent only myself, and anything I offer is only my opinion and my understanding. As for how I generate and receive power, I do it the most effective way I can, based on my experience and my understanding, as I'm sure we all do.

I don't understand what your requests would prove, other than that I am a real person. But I already know that....

I'll take a look at the video footage thread and see if anything strikes me. How about that? I hope you get your answer, since it seems you'll be taking a break from the forum. Best wishes.

-Levi Melton

[Jim Roselando]

Levi,


I don't understand what your requests would prove, other than that I am a real person. But I already know that....

Its not about proving anything. Its about sharing and learning from each other. Using the internet as a tool for learning from each other. Viewing a clip and discussing it.

I'll take a look at the video footage thread and seem if anything strikes me. How about that?

All I want is for the people who enjoy sharing and discussing WCK on this board to share and learn with each other. Then, instead of everyone debating with everyone, we can use the forum/net as a positive tool!

I know there is footage of HFY out there. I have seen it. BUT! As we are the members of this KFO board I thought its up to us to be the ones who share and grow with each other.

I have to run but take care all!

Time to take a break! Work work work!


:D

[duende]

Jim,

I would like nothing better than to put all this politics/history arguments aside.

We've been talking about putting together a little demo together to help educate the WC community as to what we are up to... So it's in the works.



Victor,

We are in agreement.

You would think that these self-proclaimed KF historians would realize that if they truly want insider information, that they must first earn it.

Unfortunately they just want the quick fix.

[t_niehoff]

Levi, sorry I left the emoticon off -- I shouldn't expect you to be able to read the sarcasm.

I'm glad we all agree that the HFY oral tradition is just that and nothing more -- that it is not "the truth" and that it hasn't been verified. That's a great starting point.

[taltos]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
I'm glad we all agree that...

First of all, you don't speak for "we all." You speak for you, unless you have some legal document stating otherwise.

Second of all, could you do me a favor and DO NOT put words into my mouth? Here's what I actually said:

"IF (please note the "if" because I am not assuming) the heart of your argument is that if something cannot be independently verified then it must not be stated as a fact, and the way the VTM has stated things in the past seemed to be being stated as if they were facts..."

"IF" and "SEEM" denote conditionals. I never agreed to anything of the sort that you stated I did.

It would be great if you wouldn't lie. It makes you and you profession look bad to feed into society's stereotypes.

-Levi

-Levi

[taltos]

No worries. My skin is thicker that Theorb seems to think.

But I'll go ahead and do what I always do when such a statement arises...

ANYONE... please let me know if I am being unreasonable, slanderous, or engaging in personal attacks. I would really like to know, because that's not my scene. Thanks!

-Levi

[VingDragon]

hey guys,
don't listen anybody - history is a part of propaganda now

:D

AMEN

[Chango]

Hello all,
I'm a little late to this post. My scheduale does not allow me more then maybe one or two nights a week to visit this forum. please excuse the delayed responses. Some of you know how that is.

Terence:
Allow me to be the first to say the HFY family has never made claims that it was the "oldest or best or most anything". So it's rediculous for anyone from the HFY family to defend this position that you yourself have presented. Go back a read old friend :D

As said before the VTM is seperate from HFY. Also if you bother to look closer before flying off the handle. You will see that the articles that got your lacies in a bunch all say something to the affect "recent research or latest findings of the VTM etc..." before oral legend is presented or disputable information is presented. If you find this not to be the case in earlier informations we can assure that in recent and future articles and information it is presented in this way. But of course I'm not a spokes person for the VTM. just pointing out a pivital point.

Do I tell potential students that what I'm doing is the best way? Of course I do! I believe it is! To choose to do second best seems idiotic or insane at best.

I'm not the type to stand on my bio and accomplishments. However my experiences and bio confirms that my decision in lineage is a well informed decision. Is this marketing? No! I mean come on if it was about marketing I could market the Yip man lineage it would be alot easier then HFY or CS. I mean come on. You have Bruce Lee, I could use the story shared with me by GM Cheung while on the town on night in hong kong! not to mention I have had direct and personal lessons from more then 10 grand masters of this lineage. I've completed the Moy Yat lineage (drills,three forms,dummy,weapons) years ago. Etc.... come on man master Po (from kung fu series)LOL! can see marketing is not the intention here.

As said before I've trained with many Grandmasters in the Yip Man lineage and other lineages alike. There is a reason I've choose to be in the HFY family. My Sifu has and does have a open door polocy "if you find something better it is your duty to go learn it" I've been with him 17 years now and it does not look like I'm leaving anytime soon. As a Sifu he has helped me go beyond just learning drills, fighting etc... I hope your Sifu does the same for you. Learning kung fu for me goes beyond history, forms, lineage and fighting etc...

As I often hear people express that you should not treat your Sifu any different then your friend etc... I disagree personally I know that a Sifu holds a huge responsiblity in guiding someones learning and thier view of this Art that we all defend an post arguement after arguement about. If a person takes that responsibility on and does not abuse it. I have nothing but respect for that person. I have nothing but respect for the student that is showing the proper respect for his. My lineage or not or even if I don't agree with what he teaches. At the end of the day you will continue in Chu sau li (sp?) and it's history and I will continue developement in the HFY. after that point what is your point? LOL!

It was a great honor that the HFY family has embraced me. I'm sure everyone here fells great about his/her lineage. It's good that they do that as it shows they are doing something they believe in. With that being said I have nothing but respect for them and thier lineages. I find it sad that in this state of your kung fu training you do not have the same feelings of respect for other lineages.

Others:
A video clip is limited and can be picked a part objectively. It would seem to be more like being held up for target practice if you ask me. I could be wrong but that seems it would be the case here. I hope to see you at the get together in May. First hand experience is always best. Plus if you do a video theme music is a must! and who could choose? LOL!

As stated before I plan on attending in may! I look forward to see some of you there. And the others well I guess I will just see you there. LOL!

Chango
;)

[t_niehoff]

taltos,

Once again you miss the sarcasm -- to spell it out, I was sure you didn't agree with my "propositions" (HFY oral tradition is simply oral tradition and nothing more), and that was my point: without verification that's all that it can be.

Chango,

There are several problems just saying things like "recent research or the latest findings of the VTM" -- we're not told what that research entailed, what specific info was "uncovered", where it came from, what makes the VTM think it credible, how it is used to reach conclusions, etc. Moreoever, it suggests the research is more than getting HFY oral tradition from Garrett and writing it up as "history." And, I'm sorry but I think in most people's eyes the VTM and HFY are synonymous -- Benny is the VTM, and Benny is a disciple of HFY, and there is an overlap of others as well. When Benny/VTM writes articles promoting HFY oral tradition as "true history" with the preamble of "recent research or the latest findings of the VTM", there is no distinguishing the two. Perhaps you now see that the VTM is recognized not an unbiased research group but a HFY promotional unit. They've done that to themselves.

[kj]

Chango,

You hit on some themes and values that ring strongly with me - self-determination, gratitude, and respect for others among them. Some things are more important than the martial art we practice. To deny our humanness is to deny who we are. To expect everyone to share the same perspective is folly. To be inconsistent with our own values in any endeavor is schizophrenic.

Nicely done.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[taltos]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
Once again you miss the sarcasm.

And once again you seem to be making assumptions. Prove to me that I missed the sarcasm and that I wasn't simply ignoring the sarcasm in favor of pointing out that the way you were presenting your information (i.e. stating things that simply aren't true) is EXACTLY what you are accusing the VTM of doing. Oh, that's right... you CAN'T.


Originally posted by t_niehoff
to spell it out, I was sure you didn't agree with my "propositions"

That's not what you said. You stated that I agreed with you. Again, it would be great if you wouldn't lie. It makes you and you profession look bad to feed into society's stereotypes. If the VTM is held to some standard of diction, surely a Lawyer is as well? I'm sure you could respect and understand that. In fact, you could help everyone here by explaining how statements (official or otherwise) should be made so as to avoid misleading anyone. Like, for example, saying that people agree with you when they don't.

I've noticed that if I make more than one point, and some are specific and more charged than others, you gloss over those in favor of vague and dismissive statements about my inability to understand, and when I point out that you are making misleading or erroneous statements, you dismiss it as sarcasm. Why is that? Why ignore the points made and try to backpedal and pull heartstrings? It seems to me that to do that is to demonstrate disdain for the communicative process.

Again, here are the main points I was making. Maybe this time we could actually address them?

* The contentions that SEEM to be causing this ruckus were made IN THE PAST and were made by people who are not even on this forum.

* The HFY have, to my knowledge, NEVER made such claims.

* The VTM MAY have stated their conclusions in such a way that people MAY have misinterpreted it. My Sibak Chango has just informed us that that's not how it was intended, and assured us that in the future, steps will be taken to ensure such statements are properly qualified.

* The VTM and the HFY are two different things. For example, I am a member of my family, and I am also a member of the Arizona State Alumni Organization. I speak for neither, and if someone were to take something I said and ascribe it to the official belief of either group, the sheer rediculousness of the assertion would probably be readily apparent. Yet this seems to be the case here. I don't know of another way to get this point across than to keep saying it.

* What else can be done other than what has been done, namely, clarifying what was meant and stating that measures will be taken to avoid that in the future?

* Are we going to continue to go around and around about something that happened in the past, or are we going to move past it and into productive discussion?

-Levi

[Ultimatewingchun]

"I'm sorry but I think in most people's eyes the VTM and HFY are synonymous -- Benny is the VTM, and Benny is a disciple of HFY, and there is an overlap of others as well. When Benny/VTM writes articles promoting HFY oral tradition as "true history" with the preamble of "recent research or the latest findings of the VTM", there is no distinguishing the two." (Terence)

Terence is very accurate with this statement...Chango, Levi.

And furthermore...isn't Benny Meng more than just a disciple - but a "Master"...or something? Within the system? Don't I have a magazine article somewhere all about Benny being taken as the NO. 1 disciple of Garrett Gee...or something?

You know I do. You guys probably have that magazine issue in a draw somewhere yourselves.

What's the point?

If you're loyal to...and satisfied with...the HFY system - and to Garrett Gee - that's one thing.

But the marketing thing has been excessive.

Why continue to defend that part of it?

Let it go.

Chango is on the right track...Come to Cleveland...let's all get together and workout.

That's the best Wing Chun marketing of all.

[taltos]

To be fair...


Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
"I'm sorry but I think in most people's eyes the VTM and HFY are synonymous -- Benny is the VTM, and Benny is a disciple of HFY, and there is an overlap of others as well. When Benny/VTM writes articles promoting HFY oral tradition as "true history" with the preamble of "recent research or the latest findings of the VTM", there is no distinguishing the two." (Terence)

Terence is very accurate with this statement...Chango, Levi.

OK. And as I said to Terrence, "The VTM and the HFY are two different things. I don't know of another way to get this point across than to keep saying it." What exactly can be done except to say it over and over to get the point across "in most people's eyes"?


Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
And furthermore...isn't Benny Meng more than just a disciple - but a "Master"...or something? Within the system? Don't I have a magazine article somewhere all about Benny being taken as the NO. 1 disciple of Garrett Gee...or something?

He IS a Disciple, and he was the first disciple taken in his generation (I actually attended the event). The "Master" title stems from his martial accomplishments (completing the Yip Man System and the fact that he has students that have reached Sifu Level -- see the other thread for info on that).


Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
What's the point?

If you're loyal to...and satisfied with...the HFY system - and to Garrett Gee - that's one thing.

But the marketing thing has been excessive.

I don't understand. Honestly, I am not trying to do anything other than to clarify. My posts come in three varieties:

1. General posts about my WC experiences (in Yip Man, Chi Sim, AND HFY).

2. Answering questions that people have (admittedly most of these questions are about HFY).

3. Pointing out when people are not being consistent in their application of rules or standards.

Since I have far more experience in the Yip Man System, and I currently study both, why is it that when I say something I am speaking for HFY and not Yip Man? I mean, to be fair shouldn't I be speaking for both? I try VERY hard to speak for ME (and I say it in almost every post), but it doesn't seem to sink in. No one says that you speak for the entire TWC organization, and rightly so. Your views are your views. Mine are mine. Why the distinction for me but not for anyone else?

All I'm after is people speaking for themselves. How great would that be?

As for the marketing thing, I can only point out that you said "has been" and rightly so. That's the past. And like I said before, "The VTM MAY have stated their conclusions in such a way that people MAY have misinterpreted it. My Sibak Chango has just informed us that that's not how it was intended, and assured us that in the future, steps will be taken to ensure such statements are properly qualified. What else can be done other than what has been done, namely, clarifying what was meant and stating that measures will be taken to avoid that in the future? Are we going to continue to go around and around about something that happened in the past, or are we going to move past it and into productive discussion?"

Seriously, all we have to do is drop it and it's over. Not play "who can get the last dig in." I have tried very hard to stick to the issues and not get all uppity. Let's walk away from it.


Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Why continue to defend that part of it?

Let it go.

I am not defending ANYTHING. I am simply pointing out that the issue has been clarified numerous times, but keeps being revisited. I am VERY happy that most of the WC practicioners of today have decided to move past the William Cheung/Emin Boztepe fiasco and not continually revisit it. It was the past, and we have moved on for the better. I just wish we could do the same here.

Thank you for your perspective Parlati Sifu. It does go a long way towards creating a better understanding of where you are coming from.

And I agree with you last statement. Let's just let it go and move past it. I'm game if the rest of the crew is.

-Levi

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Chango has...assured us that in the future, steps will be taken to ensure such statements are properly qualified. What else can be done other than what has been done, namely, clarifying what was meant and stating that measures will be taken to avoid that in the future?"

Okay.

Simple enough.

Then it's time to move on.

[Wayfaring]

Question - what's with all the focus on "marketing"?
I mean, if any sifu anywhere speaks in support of something, it could probably be labeled "marketing", especially if that individual teaches for a profession. Does that mean that's their intention, or why they support what they are?

I think any book published on WCK, article written, seminar advertised, can help promote WCK in general, and if it attracts praciticioners in a larger sense can give me more and better skilled people to roll with / interact with.

But I doubt anybody on this forum pracices any martial arts to increase their marketing ability.

Rgds,
Dave

[taltos]

COOL COOL COOL.

We're moving on.

Cheers!

-Levi

[t_niehoff]

Dave,

Let's say that I tell you how great a product EZLose is for weight loss -- all my "recent research and latest findings" prove -- though none have been independently verified -- that EZLose is the best, most efficient, weight-loss product. That may sound like interesting news and worthy of consideration if you were thinking abouttrying to lose weight. But now consider that I'm one of the only distributors of EZLose, a product that I sell for money. First, does that make you question my claims about EZLose? Second, do you question my objectivity in evaluating EZLose? Third, do you think what I'm saying may have something to do with marketing (trying to get your $ for the product I sell)?

[duende]

Terence,

Not one single person who has attended our seminars has made any complaints about being mislead or taken advantage of financially.

In fact, quite the contrary. The list of KF masters from all lineages and styles who have written us expressing their gratitude after attending one of our seminars is enormous.

Can you say the same thing about Robert's seminars???

No you can't.

Can you provide proof and background information to support all of Robert's claims and theories in his articles??

Questionable at best.

Where did he get his information, and what is his solid background in WC or MA in general???

Still waiting on this one.

Does he have the expressed written consent and support from his sources??

Definitely not.

Can you provide any certifiable proof of recognition of his KF knowledge by the KF community as a whole???

No you can't.



How about we all stop pointing fingers. If you and a few others here are as unbiased as you CLAIM. Then why don't we all move on like has been suggested.

Yes, I agree with you that the KF community is plagued with marketing devices, such as videotape learnings series etc...

But if your gripe is truly about marketing.... Your energy could best be served elsewhere.

[Wayfaring]

So, by Terence's logic, nobody who teaches WCK professionally for pay is qualified for doing independant WCK historical research because they have a conflict of interest.

Wow, I know what we really need. A NERD. A REAL NERD.

Here - I'll draft up the job requirements...

Job Title: Wing Chun Historian

Job Description: Read ancient manuscripts. Rate them on the Niehoff Verifiability Scale. Write articles. Write bibliographies for other people's articles. 50% travel trudging through southern China asking people if they know the guy in this picture.

Job Requirements: Can't teach Wing Chun. Shouldn't practice Wing Chun, as that could bias your research. Preferrably not too interested in Wing Chun to remain objective. Speak Mandarin, Cantonese, English. Definitely NOT a fighter.

Job Pay: Nada. A few people's limited respect. Lots of abuse on KFO. Official title of WCK Nerd Historian.

:rolleyes:

Sorry Levi. I'll quit now.

[Ultimatewingchun]

And the moral of the story is........................


ENOUGH TIME SPENT DEBATING HISTORY !!!









Now let's go kick some butt.

[t_niehoff]

Dave, you asked about why there was talk about marketing -- and I explained it to you. Sure, Benny can do research; anyone can. But to be accepted as true, particulalry when he's saying *his* lineage's oral tradition reflects the historical truth, we need independent verification or it smacks of marketing. Same when Leung Ting makes claims of his lineage. Same for anyone.

Deunde, as I said, if anyone makes claims about having the historical truth or using history to validate their methods, including VTM/HFY or Robert, the same standards for independent verification apply. If you seriously want proof of Robert's WCK lineage, go ask Hawkins Cheung, he's in the LA phone book. Now, how do I get in touch with Garrett's HFY teacher? ;) Apples and oranges.

Marketing, btw, is the devices and techniques used to sell a product. Typically, they concern such things as testimonials ("The list of KF masters from all lineages and styles who have written us expressing their gratitude after attending one of our seminars . . . "), reports of satisfied customers ("Not one single person who has attended our seminars has made any complaints about being mislead or taken advantage of financially"), etc. Keep talking, Duende, you're making my case!

Victor, you're quite right.

[duende]

Testimonials are used for many things Terence. NOT just marketing. Or do you get by at work without them???

I don't need to ask Hankins Cheung. As all his students I've seen on this board and others have displayed nothing but proper Kung Fu ettiquette and respect.

Nice try at riding on his coat tails though.

Still waiting for a solid answer to your claims.

[reneritchie]

R.I.P.

Another thread bites the dust...

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

Guys,
I think everyone (including both of you) have heard each others point of view on this one. While you're certainly under no obligation to drop this line of conversation, it has become rather repetitive and it seems that the other posters would very much like to move on. So I'm just making a recomendation here, but if you want to keep up with this it would be really great if you would move it to an email disscussion. At least, I think other posters might appreciate that.

Just a suggestion.

[Chango]

It is quite simple all of us have express a desire to move on to a more productive dicussion. I've tried to express to Terence that the VTM has writen many times "lastest research, current findings etc..." Simply eliminates his idea of the VTM's bias tward HFY oral legend. He demands that the method of arriving at these points be explained in articles that have set limits to thier length. If he wants to find out how each point of this info is arrived at by the VTM he can simply call or E-mail or write the VTM. We all can agree that this topic once again has destroyed another thread. From all of this we have gathered very little.


To list how these things had been arrived at in every single article would not allow the information to be presented in most cases. I can just say it like this IF YOU DON'T LIKE HOW IT IS BEING DONE THEN DO IT YOURSELF. If you have trouble with people wanting to listen or read what you have to say that is your problem. Not those who have already have an audiance. It's just that simple.

At this point the VTM continues to display the information that has presented it's self. Terence if you or anyone else has a viable lead on more information and can provide some of the foot work and man power to do further research please present it to the VTM. Beleive it or not it is one of the most open places for Wing/Weng chun lineage to present and offer thier information. I think if you stop trying to build an arguement and give this approach a try we all could benifit and enjoy it. But that choice is yours.

Let's say I said ok, ok, ok Terence your correct! Now what? what are you going to do with your victory? what does it accomplish?
I'm sure there will not be any HFY members quiting becuase of a thread on KFO. I'm sure that no one will leave this thread saying you know what on second thought I will not go visit the VTM! LOL! So I ask you what do you seek to accomplish. Just winning an argument? Ok I'll play the game. You win Terence. But everything I said right! LOL! So now is every body happy? I hope to see you in May.
:D :D :D :D

Chango

[t_niehoff]

Chango,

Saying "latest research, current findings" doesn't tell us anything -- what latest research, what current findings? Where did they come from? What makes you think they're reliable? Etc. You may gain very little or a great deal from this discussion depending on what you do: ignore the criticism and you gain little; using the criticism would make the VTM/HFY articles better.

The if-you-don't-like-it-do-it-yourself argument is childish, and actually misses the whole point -- peer review (the doing-it-yourself) requires that we know exactly what the person or organization being reviewed did in reaching their conclusion (for example, how an experiment was done) so that we can "do it ourselves" or as I put it, independently verify it. Failing to provide adequate detail about research and conclusion and then responding to criticism that sufficient detail for peer review hasn't been provided with "then do it yourself" is rediculous. (Like when the cold fusion experiements were challenged -- imagine those scientists saying "well, we found cold fusion and if you don't accept that, then go do your own research!").

I'm not trying to "win" any argument or drive the HFY people away, I'm only indicating the problems with certain POVs. Do I expect to change the views of any HFY practitioenrs? Absolutely not. But I would hope that a few might gain understanding of how some might have serious questions about accepting the VTM/HFY oral tradition as "true".

[Ultimatewingchun]

I'm not trying to "win" any argument or drive the HFY people away, I'm only indicating the problems with certain POVs. Do I expect to change the views of any HFY practitioenrs? Absolutely not. But I would hope that a few might gain understanding of how some might have serious questions about accepting the VTM/HFY oral tradition as "true".


AND I THINK it's fair to say, Terence, that many people, myself included, have serious questions about accepting VTM/HFY oral tradition as "true".

BUT we all know that by now, don't we???

That scepticism has been firmly established. And the HFY people on this forum seem to get that point by now.

So why can't we just move on to the next thing...whatever that may be?

[Ernie]

chango [I'm sure that no one will leave this thread saying you know what on second thought I will not go visit the VTM! LOL!]

well to be honest with you when i first heard about the Vtm
a group of guys from school thought it would be fun to visit

but after the last year or so of reading and seeing how biased it seems ,

no one has a desire to go , now i'm not big into history but most of my partners are

so again just being honest it does have a bit of a stepford wife one sided feeling to it

not trying to be rude or start anything just being very honest about the feeling some people get :(

[Ultimatewingchun]

Well said, Ernie.

I think it should be clear by now that very few people (outside of the HFY folks) put any credence in the "historical findings" that come out of the VTM....put any credence in Benny Meng's objectivity as an historian...put any credence in the HFY "oral tradition".

These are just facts.

But another fact is this:

Chango's willingness to participate in the Cleveland workout...KNOWING THAT HISTORY, LINEAGE, AND MARKETING THEMES will not be tolerated by anyone...is a good and positive sign. And he is to be commended for that.

So why not let it go at that, for now?

Which is not a question directed at Ernie, per se...but at everyone.

[duende]

Hey Ernie,

I consider you a fair and honest guy. Where do you think you got this "stepford wives" feeling from?

It's a creation from the internet. The reality is if you go there, you will find out for yourself how it truly is a combined effort from WC lineages across the board.

Also... understand once and for all this...

I have nothing to do with the VTM. And I joined HFY quite some time before we became involved with them.

THIS IS THE TRUTH. ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS AN ABSOLUTE LIAR.

So why do you think practically every single post of mine gets some slant thrown on it about the VTM??? Who does it really serve??

I find these accusations of "marketing" very insulting, not to mention hypocritical. But if I try to argue them... I get pigeoholed. Oh that's just the blanket VTM response.

If you say something often enough... people will start to believe you. Kind of like how the term "weapons of mass distruction" to fool many people about Irac.

My experience is that the internet IS NOT reality.

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The reality is if you go there, you will find out for yourself how it truly is a combined effort from WC lineages across the board."

No it's not.

No matter who/what lineages get represented there...Benny Meng always has the final say as to what is put out at the VTM...and what gets deleted.

And Benny has proven time and again that he's NOT an objective historian.

And this is clearly the view of virtually everyone outside of HFY.

So why continue with all of this - when better things could be discussed and done?

[duende]

Victor,

In my experience, I've met with many Sifu's from various WC lineages at our seminars that have have been to the VTM and have no issues with them whatsoever.

I realize that you feel their are issues between you and Benny. And as you know I've tried personally to help you resolve them.

I don't want to continue any of this. I've said my peace.

You are correct. Their are better things to talk about, and I appreciate your efforts to do so.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Fair enough.

[Ernie]

Originally posted by duende
Hey Ernie,

I consider you a fair and honest guy. Where do you think you got this "stepford wives" feeling from?

It's a creation from the internet. The reality is if you go there, you will find out for yourself how it truly is a combined effort from WC lineages across the board.

Also... understand once and for all this...

I have nothing to do with the VTM. And I joined HFY quite some time before we became involved with them.

THIS IS THE TRUTH. ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS AN ABSOLUTE LIAR.

So why do you think practically every single post of mine gets some slant thrown on it about the VTM??? Who does it really serve??

I find these accusations of "marketing" very insulting, not to mention hypocritical. But if I try to argue them... I get pigeoholed. Oh that's just the blanket VTM response.

If you say something often enough... people will start to believe you. Kind of like how the term "weapons of mass distruction" to fool many people about Irac.

My experience is that the internet IS NOT reality.


thanks for the kind words , and to not kick dirt up [ i'm really burning out on this forum it's like the same 3 subjects repeating like a broken record ] email me and i will give you my feeling towards the stepford wife statment , as you know i could care less about history or masters or grandmasters or even lineage to be honest i think it's all a load and just a clubs for people that can not think or do for themselves .

but i'm odd that way :D

if you want i will give you my most honest view of the whole scene ;)

[Savi]

If I may say, my view on the long history of internet battles here are so blown out of proportion in contrast to the reality outside the internet. Unfortunately, the politics here usually stem from the politics outside of the internet. And for those who do not know of the outside politics, may never understand why the politics here are so ugly. But that only matters if you are looking to understand them.

Hence, potential bridges of friendship, hope for future face to face interaction and the chance for a unified martial community are hindered by the battles waged here. People lose out on opportunities because of these things.

We have come to make friends and enemies on this forum, but the truth in each of us can only be truly experienced in person. So do you really know the person you are posting to?

I say disregard what you read, no matter how many times you read it. Believe what you experience face to face. Know your friends and enemies face to face. This is my personal belief.

I care not to involve myself in these personal internet battles much, and have not for the past couple of months. Mostly all I see in those discussions are people's opinions about truth, personal understanding of facts, feelings (usually negatively charged) and opinions about opinions and others' opinions. So why should we argue about someone else's opinion (even if what you/they see as opinion is what they/you see as truth)?

People on all sides are losing from this, and to me it is a sad state of affairs. Blaming others for anything really doesn't provide win/win situations. I do think that mutual understanding is the goal in any discussion. However, personal attacks must be countered and checked and neutralized.

I hope one day that those of us who fight on this forum would strive to put emotions aside, and find more efficient ways to maintain peace.

[sihing]

Originally posted by Savi
If I may say, my view on the long history of internet battles here are so blown out of proportion in contrast to the reality outside the internet. Unfortunately, the politics here usually stem from the politics outside of the internet. And for those who do not know of the outside politics, may never understand why the politics here are so ugly. But that only matters if you are looking to understand them.

Hence, potential bridges of friendship, hope for future face to face interaction and the chance for a unified martial community are hindered by the battles waged here. People lose out on opportunities because of these things.

We have come to make friends and enemies on this forum, but the truth in each of us can only be truly experienced in person. So do you really know the person you are posting to?

I say disregard what you read, no matter how many times you read it. Believe what you experience face to face. Know your friends and enemies face to face. This is my personal belief.

I care not to involve myself in these personal internet battles much, and have not for the past couple of months. Mostly all I see in those discussions are people's opinions about truth, personal understanding of facts, feelings (usually negatively charged) and opinions about opinions and others' opinions. So why should we argue about someone else's opinion (even if what you/they see as opinion is what they/you see as truth)?

People on all sides are losing from this, and to me it is a sad state of affairs. Blaming others for anything really doesn't provide win/win situations. I do think that mutual understanding is the goal in any discussion. However, personal attacks must be countered and checked and neutralized.

I hope one day that those of us who fight on this forum would strive to put emotions aside, and find more efficient ways to maintain peace.

Good post Savi, and agreed...

James

[duende]

Yep.. Good job Savi!

See ya in March!

[woosow]

You Might want to cross post this to the following forum as well...

forum (http://www.hfy108.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?forumid=19)

Because, it is a new year and things CAN change for the positive. At least we can all hope so.




Originally posted by Savi
If I may say, my view on the long history of internet battles here are so blown out of proportion in contrast to the reality outside the internet. Unfortunately, the politics here usually stem from the politics outside of the internet. And for those who do not know of the outside politics, may never understand why the politics here are so ugly. But that only matters if you are looking to understand them.

Hence, potential bridges of friendship, hope for future face to face interaction and the chance for a unified martial community are hindered by the battles waged here. People lose out on opportunities because of these things.

We have come to make friends and enemies on this forum, but the truth in each of us can only be truly experienced in person. So do you really know the person you are posting to?

I say disregard what you read, no matter how many times you read it. Believe what you experience face to face. Know your friends and enemies face to face. This is my personal belief.

I care not to involve myself in these personal internet battles much, and have not for the past couple of months. Mostly all I see in those discussions are people's opinions about truth, personal understanding of facts, feelings (usually negatively charged) and opinions about opinions and others' opinions. So why should we argue about someone else's opinion (even if what you/they see as opinion is what they/you see as truth)?

People on all sides are losing from this, and to me it is a sad state of affairs. Blaming others for anything really doesn't provide win/win situations. I do think that mutual understanding is the goal in any discussion. However, personal attacks must be countered and checked and neutralized.

I hope one day that those of us who fight on this forum would strive to put emotions aside, and find more efficient ways to maintain peace.

[duende]

Didn't have to try the link to know what you were up too.

The negative energy is all yours David (woosow)

Have fun chasing your tail.

[Savi]

Woosow, why do you think it is a good idea to post what I wrote (here) over at HFY108?

Because, it is a new year and things CAN change for the positive. At least we can all hope so.1. I don't see how this relates in any way.

2. I find that HFY108 has a very different demographic than here, and most people over there already know the type of person I am. My post was specific to the demographic here.

3. I posted here because there are many who have stereotyped members of HFY and the VTM as a collective, yet WE are ALL human and our own individuals. There seems to be some form of a double standard around here, as Levi (taltos) has always tried to address and clarify. I feel I do not fit the (HFY/VTM) stereotypes bandied about on this forum.

Therefore, it is not neccessary - nor is it called for - to have me to do what you suggest because of the reasons I have stated.

[Chango]

I have been a member of the VTM since it's conception and It is a sad reality that no matter how open we have been there is always someone accusing us of being Bias. I hate to admit it but grown men would literally say "if you have him there, Then I'm not going to ever come there." I can also remember not long ago that people would accuse us of being "Moy Yat's Museum" becuase of the amount of contributions he donated and we displayed in the begining. Then as other lineages have come on line things started to level out. This is one of many insults hurld at us as we have maintained that we have open arms to the entire wing/weng chun comunity. I cannot recall anyone that has visited us and was not recieved well. With that being said I hope those of you who wish to come and visit a place that embraces all lineages of Wing/Weng chun please don't let the negativity of others change your mind.

Terence,
We all get it you feel the need to criticize all of the work done by the VTM. You demand and demand certian things of the VTM and cry fowl when your screaming and insulting approach does not work for you. Your "have you stopped beating your wife?" approach and logic is not productive for any of us. One aspect of WCK history that you have not concidered in your arguements is one that calls into account the connections of the very core aspects of each system. Beyond a hand or body shape or shared terms and dialects. As we look into this aspect the VTM does not rely on second hand information. You must understand that if the Grand master or "Head" of the system is available we make a direct connection and allow them to represent thier lineage. what is your experience with GM Moy Yat, GM Chu shong tin, GM Andreas Hoffman, GM Ip Ching, GM Ip Chun, etc....

I think beyond a picture or second hand account the information found in the lineage's system would have direct clues as to who is related or not. Once again NOT YOUR SIFU'S VERSION of each lineage but the lineage holder themselves. So I hope this is my last wack at a dead horse. I will ask you outside of your Sifu's experience where do you draw your conclusions on lineages? I can say I draw mine from each and every closest living source from my own first had live experience. You know the old saying "those who talk about it and those who do it and then theres those that take other peoples word for it" which one are you?


Victor,
I welcome your kind words and I honestly feel saddened by your view of the VTM. I understand that you have old scars etc... I really hope in the near future you will be able to work through alot of those things. I enjoy your "just do it" attitude about things. I hope you become more informed about the HFY system. So the quality of our discussions can go beyond thier usual bounds. But at this point "we are where we are at" and no more.

If you remember in a past thread about "Wing chun and ground fighting" (I think was the title) once you see things first hand you will be able to move beyond superficial shapes and techniques of the system. I think then the subject was the Chi sim lineage. I think once you get a better grasp of HFY you will come to recognize the same is true with HFY. Who knows? I can only tell you that I have come to this realization and this is a great place to be.


Everyone else...
We are all family in the art of Wing/Weng chun it seems kind of silly to bicker and fight about how we are related. So please let's all move on to a better space. Remeber this forum in for fun. Right?

BTW Savi great post! :cool:
Chango

"Rember to take care of yourself and others"

[Wayfaring]

Hey Savi,

That really was an excellent post.

I too feel that personal face to face experience is a better way to really know where people are coming from than a lot of what we experience on forums.

I've read some studies where something like 60% of communication is nonverbal, like 30% is picked up from tone of voice, and only about 10% from actual words. This is a huge disadvantage in internet communication and e-mail and so forth.

Professionally, I've picked up a habit in the business environment where if I see more than 3 or 4 back and forth responses to an e-mail, I pick up the phone or go see somebody. That has saved me a lot of time and solved issues before they get started.

Anyway, I guess most on the forum here are doing the best they can on that angle but it certainly is good to realize some of these communication things and maybe move toward some more face to face where we can and chill a bit more where we can't.

Rgds,
Dave

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Victor,
I welcome your kind words and I honestly feel saddened by your view of the VTM. I understand that you have old scars etc... I really hope in the near future you will be able to work through alot of those things. I enjoy your "just do it" attitude about things. I hope you become more informed about the HFY system. So the quality of our discussions can go beyond thier usual bounds. But at this point "we are where we are at" and no more.

If you remember in a past thread about "Wing chun and ground fighting" (I think was the title) once you see things first hand you will be able to move beyond superficial shapes and techniques of the system. I think then the subject was the Chi sim lineage. I think once you get a better grasp of HFY you will come to recognize the same is true with HFY. Who knows? I can only tell you that I have come to this realization and this is a great place to be." (Chango)


Don't have a problem with anything you wrote here...except for the part about my view of the VTM simply being "colored by old scars"...which would imply that a subjective personality conflict with the curator is the ONLY thing responsible for my feelings on the subject of the museum...(even though both the museum and curator are clearly joined at the hip).

This is a very misleading approach to the subject, Chango.

OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING...regardless of who is saying it (could be me - could be any one of a thousand other people)...Benny Meng has demonstrated time and again that he's not an objective historian.

This is a fact...regardless of whether someone like me subjectively likes or dislikes Benny personally.

As to me coming to know more about HFY...I welcome that - since the more I see of it the more I like it - as it constantly reminds me of TWC.

[t_niehoff]

Chango wrote:

Terence, We all get it you feel the need to criticize all of the work done by the VTM.

**Chango, what you fail to grasp is that criticism isn't a negative thing, but a positive thing -- criticism (skeptical examinination) is what permits us to recognize our shortcomings and make the changes necessary to overcome them. If one responds to criticism with denial or anger, then one will never make those changes.

You demand and demand certian things of the VTM and cry fowl when your screaming and insulting approach does not work for you.

**These are not my personal demands, they are the demands of the task they've *chosen* to take on -- historical research. At least, the demands of doing it right.

Your "have you stopped beating your wife?" approach and logic is not productive for any of us.

**You can try to mischaracterize the points I'm making, but the demands of research remain nonetheless. If you or anyone want to prove lineage, there is only one way -- proving person to person connection in a way that is independently verifiable. Lacking that, it will forever remain theory.

One aspect of WCK history that you have not concidered in your arguements is one that calls into account the connections of the very core aspects of each system. Beyond a hand or body shape or shared terms and dialects. As we look into this aspect the VTM does not rely on second hand information. You must understand that if the Grand master or "Head" of the system is available we make a direct connection and allow them to represent thier lineage. what is your experience with GM Moy Yat, GM Chu shong tin, GM Andreas Hoffman, GM Ip Ching, GM Ip Chun, etc....

**Certainly the "core aspects" -- technical considerations -- are one aspect that should be taken into account but they don't prove lineage or hisitory (since these things can change or be adopted by means other than the accepted "story" an oral tradition provides).

I think beyond a picture or second hand account the information found in the lineage's system would have direct clues as to who is related or not.

**They can show a connection but they don't tell us how that connection came about. That connection could have come about as the oral tradition relates or it could come about some other way. The only way to *know* is to prove it and in such a way that can be independently verifiable.

Once again NOT YOUR SIFU'S VERSION of each lineage but the lineage holder themselves.

**Yip Man was the "lineage holder" and wrote a history, but Benny says that's not accurate. ;) Just because someone is a "lineage holder" (and aren't we all?) doesn't mean they know the truth about where their art really comes from.


So I hope this is my last wack at a dead horse. I will ask you outside of your Sifu's experience where do you draw your conclusions on lineages?

**What does my sifu have to do with this? I draw my conclusions based on information that is independently vierifiable, not on stories. If the VTM/HFY can prove their theories, why not get on with it and prove it? Provide the info so that we can independently verifiy it. Sh1t or get off the pot. And stop telling us what a great job the VTM does, how hard they work, etc. and provide real, verifiable information.


I can say I draw mine from each and every closest living source from my own first had live experience. You know the old saying "those who talk about it and those who do it and then theres those that take other peoples word for it" which one are you?

**I'm the one that requires folks provide real, independently verifiable evidence to support their claims -- and who will point out when folks aren't doing that. The only folks that will find that bothersome are the folks not providing that sort of proof.

[taltos]

Can we be done with this already?

Sheesh!

-Levi

[TansauNg]

Hi guys...is trey that M° Benny Mang has some pictures in which GGM Yip Man had Been hitted by Sifu Chu Chung Man ???

There are a lot of rumors about it in Europe!!!!...

[Vajramusti]

TansauNg-

Dunno- but photo shop can do wonders these days
and cut and paste too.

And context is important in understanding pictures.

Rene caught me doing chi sao with Leung Jan one time.

Dunno- how it ended. I am still living anyway!!

[t_niehoff]

It never has been a secret that CCM and YM were distant relations and knew each other in HK -- this was even publicized in "New Martial Hero" magazine (very early 1970s - which carried numerous features on both YM and CCM).

When I hear these stories I'm always reminded of the phrase "Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan." How many "taught" Bruce Lee -- if nothing more than an some "important lesson" that his success depended on? Similarly, many WCK lineages have stories of teaching YM some "important lesson" that of course explains his success.

So what I think is important is why these folks feel the need to associate themselves with Bruce or Yip. Simple -- because both have attained success, are recognized as having some degree of skill, while those promoting their association don't have those things. Bruce was good and if I taught him, I must be good. (Of course, that's not necessarily valid even if true). Yip produced some excellent results teaching (some good fighters), folks like Wong, Bruce, Cheung, etc. Who -- what results -- did those claiming to have taught Yip produce?

[anerlich]

Hi guys...is trey that M° Benny Mang has some pictures in which GGM Yip Man had Been hitted by Sifu Chu Chung Man ???"

I've got a photo in a book of Joe Frazier decking Muhammad Ali. This obviously proves .... NOTHING!

"There are a lot of rumors about it in Europe!!!!..."

Glad to see you Europeans concentrate on the important stuff. :p :p :p

[Mark Rasmus]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Victor Parlati

"I really love it when a guy who didn't know what a sprawl was until a couple of weeks ago thinks he has a complete fighting system."


I don think a complete fighting system exists, does it? but what is a "SPRAWL" .
Gee, I must be behind the times!!
Mark

[TansauNg]

Originally posted by anerlich


Glad to see you Europeans concentrate on the important stuff. :p :p :p


:D :D Fuc° °°U :D :D :

[Ultimatewingchun]

A sprawl is a wrestling move wherein you jump and throw your feet back while lowering your hips - so that your lower body (especially your legs) are out of range when someone comes in for a takedown.

Can also be used against middle and upper body grabs as well.

And the fact that your feet are back means that your upper body is in a 45-60 degree angle to the ground...and therefore has extra force going against the opponent due to gravity.

With a good sprawl he goes down and you land on top of him.

[Vajramusti]

Re Tansaung latest reply to anerlich.
Shame.

[Matrix]

Originally posted by Vajramusti
Re Tansaung latest reply to anerlich.
Shame. Joy,
I agree. Poor form TansauNg.

[Mark Rasmus]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
A sprawl is a wrestling move wherein you jump and throw your feet back while lowering your hips - so that your lower body (especially your legs) are out of range when someone comes in for a takedown.

Can also be used against middle and upper body grabs as well.

And the fact that your feet are back means that your upper body is in a 45-60 degree angle to the ground...and therefore has extra force going against the opponent due to gravity.

With a good sprawl he goes down and you land on top of him.

Thank you for the interpretation, my imagination was on a different track, glad I asked.
Regards
Mark

[Bartje]

Hi Terence-

'Proof' and 'verifiable information' are quite regularly part of your posts.

What do you consider 'verifiable information'?

thx

Bartje

[t_niehoff]

Bartje,

I said "independently verifiable proof" (the *independent* part is significant) and what constitutes that will depend on the nature of the claim itself. For example, to prove a WCK lineage claim we need to be able to independently verify each step in the "line" (that the person claimed really existed, that he practiced WCK, who he learned from, who he taught, etc.). Oral tradition (stories) may suggest avenues of inquiry but aren't, in and of themselves, proof. Nor is the claim itself proof.

[Bartje]

Terence-

Thanks for your explanation. If you don't mind, I want to take it a step further . . .

<< to be able to independently verify each step in the "line" (that the person claimed really existed, that he practiced WCK, who he learned from, who he taught, etc.) >>

This is about WHAT is to be proven (sorry, if grammatically not correct), right . . .?

Please elaborate on HOW to proof . . . what kind of things, media etc. do you consider solid proof?

tia again,

Bartje

[t_niehoff]

So you're asking what evidence should be considered in proving something? Lots of things, depending on what it is we're trying to prove. With regard to lineage claims, let me ask you -- if I claimed I was related to George Washington (my great, great, great, great grandfather or something) what sort of proof would you want from me? Obviously George was a real person and so am I. How do I connect the dots? Is my claim of a relationship proof in itself? ("Hey, that's what my mama told me! -- you calling my mama a liar?"). Go to a geneologist and see the sort of evidence they look for to *prove* a lineage, that'll give you some ideas. I've previously indicated -- in other posts -- how I could prove my lineage back to Leung Jan (after that, I can make a good case for Wong Wah Bo but can't prove it).

[Vajramusti]

Good points Terence.
Joy