Reply to hfy Meng from Chu Sifu

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

Alan Orr here, Sorry to bore the hell out of you.

This is a reply from my teacher Robert Chu to Benny Meng's thread on HFY fourm.

What a waste of time and energy... but my teacher Robert Chu has made a reply to stop benny's twist on things

Master B wrote:

Before we talk about the present, the past needs to be clearly
understood.
Let’s back up and get things straight. It seems to me that Robert Chu’s
students present themselves as if they are interested in the truth but
the
reality is that they are fooled by the King of the Pien Gwai Lo.

RC: I make no claims about being the original WCK, or charge $20 K for
discipleship and otherwise...

Master B:
Coming from many sources in the martial arts community over many years
Robert Chu has been attacking and badmouthing well-known and
well-respected
Sifus for a long time. In the past there were no consequences for his
actions so he continues his childish, immature behavior to this day.
This
probably has to do with his youth in New York City. He told me himself
that
he used to hang out with gangs and street toughs and the attitude was
all
about protecting yourself first. Those experiences as a youth seem to
be
powerful as they are still influencing his behavior. Being a product of
that
environment it seems that he’s still clinging to that attitude. But
he’s
messing with the wrong people: he disrespected my Sifu and the HFY
lineage.

RC: Again, Ad Hominen attacks of a system that has no credentials.
This
shows that BM was my student - I had my youth fighting with gangsters
and
other punks. Childish, immature behavior? I don't see that, nor is
that
relevant to HFY's alleged history. BM and HFY is insulting all WCK
systems
of today as well as the ancestors with their false claims.

BM: My post here is not to argue which lineage is better or the
historical
facts of Wing Chun. My post here is to make clear that Robert Chu
started
rumors about HFY and Grand Master Gee, thinking he could get away with
it.
If Alan is concerned about justice and truth, why has he ignored
Robert’s
latest writing attacking the HFY lineage in the thread I started here?
Alan
spoke to me, asking ‘why is Gary attacking my Sifu?’ The fact of the
matter
is that we’re not attacking anybody – we’re stating the facts. The
negative
image that Robert Chu has is solely his responsibility. Gary is simply
defending his Kung Fu family. Remember, the fact of the matter is that
Robert Chu initiated the defamation of HFY years ago when HFY first
came out
to the public just like he started this latest round of politics. Alan
talks
about ‘what matters is application’… in our family, what matters is
doing
what is right. The Shaolin Monks didn’t study martial arts simply to
learn
how to beat each other up. Instead, they learned how to apply the
lessons
they learned through martial arts training to living life. In our
family, we
start with what things appear to be, the Sik. Then we bring students to
the
understanding of Lei and Faat – the fundamentals of Principles, Laws
and
Essence. Because of this process, we teach our students to think
independently. Often in class, we tell the students “don’t believe what
you
hear or see, gain the wisdom and experience for yourself and make the
conclusion on your own.” We want our students to be independent
thinkers.
This is our organizational methods. Don’t fall into the trap of what
appears
to be…

RC: But they all act like lemmings in listening to BM's rants. HFY is
the
system that says it is original and authenticv from Shaolin. We know
it is
simply not true. I started no rumors, just do what Parlotti said, "No
one
with half a brain is going to accept what either man says (Cheung and
Gee)
on blind faith." I question the authenticity of the lineage and if
that is
an insult, and the HFY boys take it as such, then so be it - I just
don't
believe what is the big deal to attack me. Where is the proof that
says Gee
did not learn from William Cheung? HFY looks very much like TWC.
Notice
what BM says here "My post here is not to argue which lineage is better
or
the historical facts of Wing Chun." More smoke - simply show us the
proof
of the system.

BM: To start from the beginning I want to lay out some background
information first.

RC: This is all irrelevant.

BM: Part I: How Robert Chu left the Moy Yat family

RC: Acording to BM...LOL!

BM: Robert Chu told me himself that he was a student of Sifu Lee Moy
Shan.
Sifu Lee is my Sihing in the Moy Yat family. Robert said he wanted to
finish
the system, specifically the weapons. Robert approached his Sifu,
saying to
the effect that “I’ve been here long enough and I want to finish the
system.” According to Robert, Sifu Lee replied to the effect that “You
have
many Sihing that haven’t completed the system yet so why should you be
so
special to finish ahead of them?”

RC: That is true. But what BM doiesn't know is that none of my
training
brothers learned the entire system, and that I suspected he did not
complete
the system from Moy Yat.

BM: Robert basically gave his Sifu an ultimatum, basically, “If you
don’t,
I’ll leave and go somewhere else.” Obviously, a student making this
kind of
ultimatum leaves the Sifu with no room to negotiate.

RC: This is assumption on BM's part. He does not know LMS or me. I
asked
LMS if he completed the whole system under MY. He said he did. At
that
time Lee was embroiled in another business, marriage,
and other things. When I questioned him, he felt that I did not
deserve his
answers, which is fine. My thought is he does not teach what he does
not
know or have.

BM: Sifu Lee said to the effect, “If you leave, don’t use my name.” And
Robert told me he walked out and as he left, he basically said, “F***
off! I
have my own name and it’s Chu.” This is how he ended his relationship
with
his Sifu.

RC: I told LMS if he wasn't willing to teach or did not know the entire
system, I would learn from somewhere else, as I had the desire to
complete
the system. There's nothing wrong with that. That shows a good,
determined
student. When Lee said, "Don't use my name if you teach", I simply
stated,
"My surname is Chu, I do not want anyone else's name. Success or not,
that
is my name." The Chu family is descended from the Ming Dynasty - why
would I
change my name to Lee or Moy? WHO DOES NOT HONOR THEIR FATHER? In
Chinese,
it is a grave insult not to be called by one's surname.

BM: Then, with nowhere to go, Robert went to his Sigung, Moy Yat.
Robert
told Grand Master Moy Yat that he didn’t have any money as he was still
in
college but that he wanted to finish the system – all he had to learn
was
the weapons. After discussion and interaction with Grand Master Moy
Yat, the
Grand Master said that Robert’s kung fu was still quite young and the
best
way to finish the system was to become a member of the Special Student
Association, which covers the entire system. The cost of that program
was
only $3000 for the whole system and lifetime support.

RC: Moy Yat came off as a greedy businessman, but now in hindsight, I
realize he was selling his craft. I felt he was conning me. And I
listened
to him for over an hour on how LMS did not study the compolete system
from
him and that Moy Yat only taught him formally up to Chum Kiu. My
disgust
with Moy Yat and Lee Moy Shan was that Moy Yat should have taken
responsibility and taught the complete system. This way LMS shouldn't
be
teaching. Of course, if this reaches public ears, this is not good.
Moy
Yat today is dead, and LMS has retired from teaching. Moy Yat wanted
to
give me a special deal, "Pay me $1K now, then $100 a month for 10
months and
then he would start me all over again. This is a special deal for you
because you are Chinese." I was disgusted with the entire way this
was
conducted. I decided to not train with them. I rejected that sales
offer
feeling that martial arts should not be sold in that way.


BM: To me, this is a bargain. I myself paid a lot more to learn from
Grand
Master Moy Yat and what I received was worth more than any amount of
money I
could spend. Years later in Robert’s writing on the Internet and in
published articles, he wrote about a ‘well-known Sifu in New York’
implying
that the Sifu only wants $3000 and cheats the public. When Robert
criticized
this Sifu he said that the Sifu didn’t touch his student’s hands and
couldn’t even fight.

RC: Which is true.

BM: Speaking about money, when I was doing research into the Gu Lao
system
with Robert, he charged me $1000 for two days but he ended up spending
more
than half the time showing me his interpretation of the Ip Man system.

RC: Because BM's WCK was so lacking, and his power was coming from his
shoulders, I had to correct BM's lack of stance, structure and
mechanics,
all of which he could not learn from Moy Yat, as a distance learning
student. I had to go back and correct his lousy forms and structure
and
lousy weapons application and form. To date, I still don't know if
he's
doing it right. At this time, BM was toppled over 40 times onto his
hotel
room bed because he did not have a root at all. It was pathetic that
his
gung fu was so low. As I charge $100 an hour, it is only fair I be
compensated for my time to fix him.


Part 1 continued

[Alan Orr]

part 2 continued

BM: And as he showed me his Gu Lao, he had to look at his notes as he
couldn’t remember it directly. I came to California specifically to
research
Gu Lao as he said over the phone that he was an expert. When I met his
students during that trip, I asked his students about Gu Lao but none
of
them had learned it from him.

RC: Gu Lao WCK's structure is loose in multiple San Sao sets and
formless.
I looked at notes to make sure I left nothing out and taught that to
him
carefully and sequentially, as I wanted him to have it down. All this
proves I am a careful and thoughtful teacher. And then I gave him a
copy of
the notes. Don't like my teaching style is fine. But to say I don't
teach
is another story. Benny's lack of structure and stance was oathetic
for a
person allgedly certified to teach. He is a disgrace to the Moy Yat
family.
And if you ask people in the Moy Yat family about BM today, they don't
have
many good things to say about him and the VTM.

Part II: Complete Wing Chun

BM: Robert Chu was a nobody before the book Complete Wing Chun came
out.

RC: LOL! I thouyght I was always Robert Chu, at least in this
lifetime.

BM: As a matter of fact, he was just a guy that got kicked out of his
kung
fu family on the East Coast and moved to the West Coast to start over.
This
he told me himself.

RC: I got married and my wife's family is in California. BM is a
joker! I
moved because I was a loser? LOL! I moved because of my wife and the
opportunity to study with Hawkins Cheung whom, I met in late '87, and
invited for a seminar in April '88. Iwas really impressed with a WCK
sifu
taught by Yip Man who actively did Chi Sao with isstudents, emphasized
fighting application and not afraid to teach what he knew, unlike what
I had
experienced before. BM also seems to miss my training in HK under Koo
Sang
and meeting elders like Wong Shun Leung, Chu Sheung Tien, and Lo Man
Kam in
1987 where I studied the complete system in HK.

BM: In his own words, he said, “The hatred I have towards the Moy Yat
family
fueled my energy to continue to study Wing Chun.”

RC: Sure, which I used to channel my energy constructively.

BM: That was the reason he started looking into different lineages of
Wing
Chun.

RC: That is not why. I studied many things because they came my way,
like
meeting with Kwan Jong Yuen. Also, there is nothing wrong with looking
oiutside the family for better training methods, applications, and the
like.

BM: He started putting together information and through the Internet
met up
with Rene Ritchie. Robert suggested they put a book together. Robert
went to
different Wing Chun families and asked for help – he asked them to
write
information on their prospective lineages. Many of the chapters on
other
lineages were written by representatives of the respective lineages
without
receiving credit… except for Y. Wu. It turns out that Y. Wu understood
about
how publishing and royalties work. He insisted on having his name as an
author so he would receive a part of the royalties as he wrote the
Namyang
chapter.

RC: BM doesn't know what he's talking about. The idea for the book was
Y.
Wu's, who proposed it to RR, who asked my to co-author the book.

BM: John Murphy wrote the chapter on Hung Seun Wing Chun but didn’t get
credit. Andreas Hoffmann wrote the chapter on Chi Sim and didn’t get
credit
either. Why was that? Because Robert Chu didn’t inform them of the
total
situation. The issue here is that there should have been more than
three
authors on the book but Robert took all the credit. And as a side note,
Robert Chu told me personally that he did all the work on Complete Wing
Chun
by himself. That was before I found out all the information above. When
they
were writing the book, Robert and Rene had never even met in person. It
wasn’t until much later that they actually met face-to-face. As is his
character, after the meeting Robert told me (over the phone) that
Rene’s
skill sucked.

RC: BM is trying to put a wedge between Rene and I here. How much
more
silliness and pettiness do we see here? RR's WCK at the time was not
mature, lacking in body structure, structural alignment and vector
forces.
I did teach Rene everything and shared with him my knowledge openly.
As for
the book, it was to be co-authored by 3 co-authors. John Murphy wanted
to
be a co-author, but we controlled the format. All we wanted was to
interview the teachers and put the info in the format we were doing.
As it
was, the Hung Suen Chapter was not in the format we wanted. It is
glaringly
apparant in the Table of Contents. I did not take the credit for the
book
- it is co-authored by 3 people, not just Robert Chu. How silly!
Andreas
wrote nothing - I simply put together the chapter with Andreas info
that I
interviewed him for.

continued

[Alan Orr]

part 3 continued


Part III: Robert Chu’s actions regarding Hung Fa Yi

BM: After the Grand Opening of the VTM in 1998, we had already done
many
years of research on the Ip Man lineage. Our next step was to go
outside the
Ip Man lineage. At that time, Robert Chu and Rene Ritchie had done some
research through the Internet on other lineages of Wing Chun outside
the Ip
Man lineage. The VTM’s policy was to do our research through first-hand
experience and face-to-face interaction with leaders and insiders to
the Ip
Man lineage. We continue that practice today. I was preparing a trip to
China for VTM Research into non-Ip Man Wing Chun lineages when I
noticed
that Grand Master Gee was living in California. I saw it in the chapter
on
Hung Suen that John Murphy wrote in Complete Wing Chun. I decided to
visit
GM Gee first because he was closer. I met him on December 8th, 1998.
That
was an historical meeting – Grand Master Gee shared with me a lot of
historical information, including the original name of the system, the
family tree, and many other things that were very exciting. GM Gee
treated
me to dinner and his students John Murphy and Matt Kwan gave me a tour
of
San Francisco. On that trip, I made note of the fact that this Wing
Chun
family exhibited great martial arts etiquette.

On my way back to Ohio, on the plane I ran into a well-known Wing Chun
instructor out of Sacramento, California. He asked me what I was doing
in
San Francisco and I told him about the research I did with GM Gee. His
next
response was quite shocking to me. He said, “Oh, yes. I’ve heard of
that
name. Robert Chu told me that this guy is combining his kung fu with
William
Cheung’s Wing Chun.” It was not until GM Gee and I got to know one
another
that the full story came out.

One day the topic of Robert Chu came up and GM Gee shared with me some
of
his interaction with Robert Chu. By that time, Robert Chu had told me
not to
trust Sifu Gee. It turned out that Robert Chu had also told Sifu Gee
not to
trust me. In fact, when Robert Chu met GM Gee it was an established
fact
that Robert tried to shame GM Gee’s students, said he wished he lived
in San
Francisco so he could learn under the Grand Master, and that the
students
didn’t know how lucky they were.

RC: This is all Master B's interpretation, my warning was how was it
that GG
practiced a form of WCK that looked like TWC - I felt I couldn't trust
that.
That was the point, as it is today. What is the truth behind the
similarity of HFY and TWC and where is the proof? BM, not knowing
TWC,
would think that it was something unique and new. I wished I lived in
SF so
I could research it more, because when I saw it - it looked like TWC to
me -
their SNT looks like TWC's; their Chum Kiu looks like TWC's the first
few
sections of the Muk Yan Jong looks like TWC's, the early logo, business
card, stances, 5 stages of combat, all look like TWC - someone is
lying
about the origins of their WCK - and since I studied with William
Cheung, I
don't think he is lying about Yip Man teaching him. And at the time,
when I
visited and our relations with GG was good, I did compliment his
students to
tell them how lucky they are to study with him (...if that was a
legitimate
system).

BM: Robert also spent a lot of his time with GM Gee bad-mouthing the
Moy Yat
family. GM Gee told me that when the two of us met, he had a very
negative
opinion about Moy Yat like he was one of the top bad Sifu ever, even
though
the two had never met. Over time, it became obvious that it was Robert
Chu
with the problem, not Moy Yat. Even while bad mouthing me personally on
the
internet, Robert was still calling GM Gee, asking to learn from the
Grand
Master.

RC: GG and I were friends back then. All before BM and the VTM were
involved . Of course, things were friendly back then. As a WCK
historian,
I want to know more about the truth. After spending more time with GG,
my
BS antenae kept popping up...this system looked too much like TWC. I
don't
feel it is an honest coincidence.

BM: There’s more to say but this post is getting long. I’ll have more
to say
on this later this week.

RC: More to say? About whom? How about saying why HFY looks like TWC
so
much? Go back to the real issue. Also this shows my character in
never
giving up, and only getting feedback, not failure in succeeding in
life.
There's no bad here. This is just one person's interpretation. As for
BM
and I, it's just a relationship which has fallen apart, just like
things
tyhat happen in real life. I hold onto no hatred. That was all past.

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD
chusauli@hotmail.com

www.chusaulei.com

From Alan

I hope that clears up this attack on my teacher.

We have now seen why HFY guys have these attachment problems. They learn this direct. Time to read my Chan (ZEN) guys

No need for reply - this is a statement to Benny

Alan Orr

www.alanorr.com

[Jonathan_HFY_AZ]

Hello All,

I've been reading all of the comments back and fourth between the HFY guys (which I am one of) and the 'chu camp' for quite some time, and until now have tried to remained out of it mainly because I have never met Robert Chu or any but one of his guys. Without any first-hand knowledge how could I comment? Well, now I see what everyone is talking about, first hand.
This latest post digusts me. Robert Chu says that Benny Meng is insulting all WC lineages?? Does Robert even realize what he's said in his replies??

First he starts off and bad mouths Moy Yat and Lee Moy Shan both more than once, and very disgracefully at that. Using words like 'greedy', refering to one as a con man, calling them lyers, and getting even more personal: " At that time Lee was embroiled in another business, an affair, a crumbling marriage, and other things"
This is slanderous IMO. An affair? Is there proof? What 'other things'. I don;t know Robber Chu OR Mr. Lee, but reading this, it shows Robert Chu says whatever he feels about whoever he wants without regard for manners, concequence, or respect. This is just aweful. This goes right along with what people have been saying about Robert Chu, and only verifies the stories Master Meng has given us.

Robert then goes on to say "Moy Yat should have taken responsibility and taught the complete system". So now, he feels he should tell a MASTER how he should teach and conduct his afairs, someone Robert went to for knowledge. Who does Robert think he is? I think this speaks volumes for his character, and only solidifies many peoples views of him.

RC: " BM is trying to put a wedge between Rene and I here. How much
more silliness and pettiness do we see here? RR's WCK at the time was not
mature, lacking in body structure, structural alignment and vector
forces."
So, it seems that perhaps Robert might have said that RR's skills 'sucked' since he pretty much just backed it up with the above statement. Is Master Meng truely trying to put a wedge between RC and RR by stating an obvious fact? It was never denied that RC said RR sucked. The way I see it, Master Meng stated only what he heard, Robert just pretty much confirmed it. I'd say it's Robert's bad, not Master Mengs..
Makes me wonder who else Robert might have said sucks that he is now friends with.. Or how he talks about anyone he meets behind thier back.

Then I read on about Roberts observations regarding similarities he percieved between HFY and TWC. How some of HFY's forms LOOKED like TWC's, how thier buisness cards looked similar (hahaha, that's funny by the way - you can learn a lot about a kung fu system by looking at a buisness card!), 5 stages of combat 'look' like TWC's. So, what?? That's just surface level 'looks' - that says nothing of the knowledge either system holds! Many MANY WC lineages 'look' similar, but are vastly difference in application, concept, stance etc.
To me this is surface level stuff - you can't tell much about a system's concepts, structures, energies, etc from a 'picture' so-to-speak.

I have seen both SNT and Chum Kiu forms, dummy, etc. (HFY in person, TWC on video only) and I can see MANY differences, just from watching the TWC video (and in no way am I trying to say one is any better than the other with this statement). So now we all have two opinions. Doesn't mean Robert is right and I am wrong, just 2 opinions - No big deal... untill I read this:
"someone is lying about the origins of their WCK" "and since I studied with William Cheung, I don't think he is lying about Yip Man teaching him." then flooed up with "after spending more time with GG, my BS antenae kept popping up...this system looked too much like TWC. I don't feel it is an honest coincidence."
WHOAW!
Now Robert Chu is directly calling Grandmaster Gerret Gee a lyer in public! All based on some similarties he SAW in some of the forms, a BUISNESS CARD (haha), a logo etc?? And one concept he listed that as far as I know are not the same, admitted by both lineages???? Who is Robert Chu to call either of these Grandmasters Lyers, or either??? Is Robert Chu the end-all judge and verdict on what is ligitimate, 'real' WC, who is a lyer, who is teaching 'correctly, who is a con man, who lies about thier knowledge (GMG, Mr. Lee, Moy Yat, etc)??

Master Meng said: "Robert also spent a lot of his time with GM Gee bad-mouthing the Moy Yat family."
And obviously, that's been verified. Now he is bad mouthing more people. Now he is badmouthing Grandmaster Gerret Gee and calling him a lyer - someone Robert wanted to learn from on top of it all! This does not sound like the actions of someone with even a shred of respect, manners, dignity, etc. Sounds like the actions of a lowly street punk to me. (opinion of course)

I have heard and read many things about Robert Chu, and untill this point, everything to me were personal accounts and opinions (right or wrong) that I just put away in the back of my mind. Now I see there is verifiable evidence to all of these FACTS as I see them now. And I am sure I am not the only one that sees this. And they come directly from Robert's 'mouth'.

And Alan, you stand up for this guy?

Jonathan

EDIT: Rebert Said "Where is the proof that says Gee did not learn from William Cheung? HFY looks very much like TWC." What??? GMG should prove to who, Robert Chu, that he did not learn from GM Willaim Cheung?!?!?! WHY?? Because Robert saw some similarities?? What a joke!! Not everyone goes around stealing thier kung fu! Only someone that does such a think would asume GMG did the same. Speaks volumes about Roberts character (or lack of one)

[Jonathan_HFY_AZ]

On another note:

Sorry for the prolonged New Year Politics. While I hate poiltics, it seems that sometimes it cannot be avoided. I also am starting to feel maybe Robert might not be worth the energy anyway, and maybe that is what he is after anyway.
But I also don't feel this 'round' of politics should go unanswered. I am sure I am not the only one that sees the source of the problem.
Happy New Year to all, and hopefully this will come to an end soon, one way or another.

Jonathan

[An jie]

Too much politics = more horse stance

Buddhism teaches that all things will work themselves out.
When a crowd is having a conversation and all the sudden all of the people stop talking and yet there is one person still yelling, it is that individual that is deemed self important and self precious:D

[anerlich]

Robert Chu says that Benny Meng is insulting all WC lineages??

Actually, there's a case to be made that he did just that in Mastering Kung Fu when he and his co-authors dumped all lineages other than HFY and Jee Sim in a straw man basked called "Popular Wing Chun" and then stomped all over it. I'd resist the temptation to say he only left Chi Sim out because he might have had a hard time convincing Andreas to write the foreword otherwise, but of course I have no proof of that.

There are allegations he insulted TWC, my lineage, by saying it was 70% or 90% of HFY, but I won't bring those up as they are only hearsay :p

I've had some good email chats with Robert in the past, but he's never going to make much of a diplomat, not that I will either.


I am sure I am not the only one that sees the source of the problem.


Yeah, but we may have different opinions about who/what that is.

I don't see any WC saints wronged here. I do see a number of wannabee WC top guns whose egos are writing cheques their bodies can't cash.

In the words of Rodney King (no, not the Crazy Monkey Boxing guy), "can't we all just get along?"

[anerlich]

Buddhism teaches that all things will work themselves out.

I guess the Buddha never went to Iraq, huh? Probably just as well he didn't do WC either - things might have been very different.

[Gooseman]

In the ring is the decider.
In boxing or any functional activity the truth is decided by the winner.
Who's your money on CHu vs MEng.
Both chaps seem a little pathetic and too old to do much more than waffle trivial tripe at each other.
Yawn, then yawn again.
The Gooseman.

[t_niehoff]

Just so you understand the background:

All of this started up again because Alan recently attended a Benny Meng seminar in the UK (where Benny was promoting the HFy oral tradition as "the true history of WCK"), and asked Benny face-to-face, man-to-man to put all the "negative energy" between HFY and CSL WCK behind us (he also asked Benny if what he was saying was fact or his opinion, and Benny finally admitted it was merely his opinion). A nice idea. At that point, with Alan standing before him, Benny agreed. Then he got back to the US, safely distant from Alan, and promptly broke his promise. Alan - and I - have tried on the HFY108 forum to get everyone on board with putting the past behind us, but Benny was nowhere to be found, and we encountered nothing but resistance. Still Benny said nothing; not an encouraging word. Nothing until very recently. And you can read his posts -- and the whole sordid mess -- for yourself.

Terence

[Wayfaring]

Just so you understand the background:

All of this started up again because Alan recently attended a Benny Meng seminar in the UK (where Benny was promoting the HFy oral tradition as "the true history of WCK"), and asked Benny face-to-face, man-to-man to put all the "negative energy" between HFY and CSL WCK behind us (he also asked Benny if what he was saying was fact or his opinion, and Benny finally admitted it was merely his opinion). A nice idea. At that point, with Alan standing before him, Benny agreed. Then he got back to the US, safely distant from Alan, and promptly broke his promise. Alan - and I - have tried on the HFY108 forum to get everyone on board with putting the past behind us, but Benny was nowhere to be found, and we encountered nothing but resistance. Still Benny said nothing; not an encouraging word. Nothing until very recently. And you can read his posts -- and the whole sordid mess -- for yourself.

Terence

Terence, safely distant from any practicing HFY member, above tries to give an account of the background of an event he didn't attend. Understandably, his account of the event is mostly BS.

It's interesting that one who pushes so hard for "independant verifiable evidence" can provide a supposedly accurate background based upon second-hand hearsay of an event. But hey, there's the double standard.

Alan did try to go on HFY108 and move forward. The "resistence" he met was because some HFY members are aware of the types of things his sifu Robert Chu has said in the past and told him Robert would need to apologize to move forward. Eventually all this resulted in Robert posting some not-so-hidden jabs at HFY on wingchunkuen forums. I personally enjoyed the "f@rt, f@rt" proverb there. It's great entertainment. And Robert telling us what he really thinks, above.

[t_niehoff]

I notice you didn't say my account was untrue. ;) If you read the HFY108 forum, you'd see I rehashed what Alan said (who was there). And Benny didn't live up to his part. Because of that, the attempt at "peace" failed.

I say the same things to people's faces as I do when they aren't there. I use my real name on forums (don't hide behind pseudonyms), I'm in the phone book, so anyone can find me if they want to. Anyone can come play with us. I'll gladly say any of this to any HFY practitioner's face or anyone else because it is the truth.

FWIW, I don't claim to be highly skilled or knowledgeable -- certainly I don't call myself "master" ;) -- but I do get my ass kicked so much (in BJJ, MMA, WCK) that nothing intimidates me. :) That's the great thing about *martial arts*.

Terence

[couch]

Too much politics = more horse stance

Buddhism teaches that all things will work themselves out.
When a crowd is having a conversation and all the sudden all of the people stop talking and yet there is one person still yelling, it is that individual that is deemed self important and self precious:D

And they will.

This type of stuff just drives the "underground guys" and anti-politics practicioners fa rther away.

I think I'll go practice my horse stance now!

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

[Wayfaring]

I notice you didn't say my account was untrue. ;) If you read the HFY108 forum, you'd see I rehashed what Alan said (who was there). And Benny didn't live up to his part. Because of that, the attempt at "peace" failed.

I say the same things to people's faces as I do when they aren't there. I use my real name on forums (don't hide behind pseudonyms), I'm in the phone book, so anyone can find me if they want to. Anyone can come play with us. I'll gladly say any of this to any HFY practitioner's face or anyone else because it is the truth.

FWIW, I don't claim to be highly skilled or knowledgeable -- certainly I don't call myself "master" ;) -- but I do get my ass kicked so much (in BJJ, MMA, WCK) that nothing intimidates me. :) That's the great thing about *martial arts*.

Terence

Mostly BS = untrue.

rehashed = spin doctored insinuating Benny Meng is afraid of Alan.

Attempt at peace failed = you and Alan acting like @sses on HFY108 when people suggested Robert needed to initiate peace attempts. I would say Alan started out with good intentions, but did not live up to his agreement regarding moving forward w/o negatives.

Master = simple term meaning your students have schools / students.

You not being highly skilled or knowledgeable = no argument from me.

Anyone can come play = same in virtually any HFY school. You don't have the corner on any markets getting beat up in MMA / BJJ / WCK envrionments.

[Jeff Bussey]

Thanks for the entertainment guys. Keep it coming.
Some people get annoyed with this but I love it. What else am I going to do when I'm drinking my coffee.
Carry on.

J

[Mr Punch]

So it is true that when men get old they return to their childhoods...? :rolleyes:

Bloody kids.

[Alan Orr]

Hi Guys

This my teacher last reply to Benny. Its very boring for us to have to deal with this type of posting, but if Benny thinks its okay to post twisted threads we must add the other side to them.

I would rather we meet up and test our skills. I hope I will not have to post on this subject again. I tried to make things better between out groups, but that was just attacked. Best to leave it as it is and deal with thinks as men.

I have better things to do with my time.

Alan Orr


Reply for Robert Chu-

Benny Meng's small heartedness and low character has hit an all time
low,
showing the insecurities he has and lack of confidence. I can only
conjecture that he must hate me because he has a lack of skill which is
lower than me, which he refers to as "Phony Sifu X" (...in which he
couldn't
even spell "phony"). If I had no skill, how come he was bested, and
tossed
down so easily over 40 times? His hatred of me is very apparent and I
am
personally tired of this nonsense of going back and forth and putting
names
and lies out there. His hatred has polluted a good relationship I had
originally with the HFY family, and caused it to degrade to an all time
low.
Traditionally in the martial world when a student of a clan has acted
in
bad manner, he is expelled from the martial arts clan. In this way,
Benny
Meng should be expelled from the HFY family. He has no respect for me
as a
person or as a Sifu in the Martial arts world and I have suffered his
personal attacks on me quietly for many years, and taken insults from
people
I do not know, because of his bickering and continued tirade against me
with
his students. Is that a good example of a master? Spreading hatred?

Of the Moy Yat people I know, Master B is lacking as I know he did not
study
that long, nor was he around to train in sufficient skill with his Moy
Yat
training brothers. He was totally lacking in body structure and
couldn't
even stand in his stance properly. My 4 structure tests are an
objective
method of testing WCK core basics. If you can't pass them, your WCK
skill
is very, very low. Benny couldn't pass 3 of 4 tests! He was all
shoulder
power with no root. What a joke from a certified individual! When you
see
Henry Moy, John Chen, Mickey Chan or other seniors of the Moy Yat clan,
they
have real skill. I am grateful for the martial arts I learned from the
Moy
Yat family and remember the kindness from Henry Moy when he reviewed my
sets
and taught me the Luk Dim Boon Gwun and shared with me what he knew of
the
Baat Jaam Dao. I kept my word with my estranged Sifu Lee Moy Shan
when I
published Complete Wing Chun, and never used his name in all the years
I
taught, and I certainly acknowledged those seniors who helped me and
thanked
the Moy Yat family in the book. People in the Moy Yat clan do not have
any
favorable things to say about Benny and even wanted to expel him from
Moy
Yat's funeral. Also there are many issues of how he conducted himself
with
the chops, the museum and other issues. They are not news. People in
the
Moy Yat family know this for years about him.

I originally had no trouble with Garrett Gee and family. I still like
to
view HFY as separate from the VTM. I certainly have questions, and of
course, from rumor mouth Benny, they got twisted and distorted like his
thinking, just as he is spreading false lies and rumors now. One can
read
Mastering Kung Fu and know that the VTM was editorializing many things
and
used them as silly attacks to the entire WCK family. I am a small
local
martial artist, why does BM act like this? It is because he is
threatened
that the illusion he sells is at jeopardy. He has no real skills, and
Benny
is the "curator" of his own museum, and the information he has put out
is
faulty and without evidence. If HFY states that is all we have, don't
stretch - be objective, not biased. For this reason, he should also
step
down as curator of this VTM, as he is very biased. The material he
has put
out reeks of propaganda and is insulting to the WCK ancestors.

Garrett Gee told me once that Benny denied he was my student. I
thought
this was poor martial ettiquette. But knowing Benny's character, that
is
understandable. Basically, he is the cause for the ongoing Chu Sau Lei
family and HFY family conflict. I was originally a friend of HFY
(then
called Hung Suen) and insisted on their inclusion in Complete Wing Chun
and
even extended deadline dates. Garrett Gee has acknowledged me in the
recent
HFY history of getting known publically.

To bring up Andreas is also funny; Andreas Hoffman no longer teaches at
the
VTM or wants much to do with them. Must be BM's charming personality,
or is
it that everytime he taught you something, HFY (coincidentally) also
had the
same thing? Andreas has also said to me that HFY looks like TWC.

Hate shows Benny Meng has no Chan, despite all the words he says he is
cultivated. He is a poor example of a man with no honor. I know that
he
has painted me in a veil of distortion, and caused an entire Kung fu
clan to
rile up against me, and now we see he is trying to do more with false
rumors
and lies by mentioning other names. This shows what low character he
has.
Benny Meng, it is time to step down as "curator" and from your own ego
and
self importance - which I suspect is what "HFY Chan" is supposed to be
about. You demonstrate "head and mouth Chan" and you have no
cultivation.
You cannot even watch your mind, and be centered, which is what WCK
demands.

Want to challenge me? That's funny! You use martial arts for self
protection and defense, not to be an aggressor - or is that your
aggression
comes from the delusions, hate and greed in your mind? That's the
Shaolin
way? I happily accept your challenge. Come to my school in Los
Angeles
Chinatown, 818 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA this Saturday, January
20,
2007 at 8 am. We can have our match and video it and put it on
Youtube.com.

Benny boasts (which again is funny as he is a "Master B") about besting
my
students? That's a good laugh too! The class was mostly beginners
(less
than a year!) and says nothing of a couple of my semiors (with less
than 3
years experience) who threw him about effortlessly (who at that time
had
about 10 years experience in WCK)! I guess distance learning is not
as
good as hands on. I guess we really know who the phony is. My words
at
the end were in jest - as Master B was wholeheartedly accepted in the
family. People who don't know me well, I guess they do not understand
my
sense of humor. It's all fine! To have to explain it ruins the joke.

I'm still looking for independent verifiable proof about HFY beyond
Garrett
Gee, as is the rest of the WCK/VT family. All this smoke and mirrors,
but
still not one answer of the truth. If HFY is independently verifiable,
I
would extend my public apologies in writing and kowtow to your master,
but
as I see it, basically you're full of ****! ****! :)


Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD
chusauli@hotmail.com

www.chusaulei.com

[Chango]

I will let Robert Chu's forked tongue do most of the talking!! LOL!

RC- The Chu family is descended from the Ming Dynasty

*Robert where is your pedigree?? Come on man lets see verifiable proof! LOL!

RC- It is common in Chinese culture to "Pien Lo Fan" or "Pien Gwai Lo"

* I guess this is your point of view on what is "common in Chinese culture" LOL! Do you read what your write? I think we call it the pot calling the kettle etc...

RC-Traditionally in the martial world when a student of a clan has acted in bad manner, he is expelled from the martial arts clan.

* Robert please tell us more about "the martial world" It's clear you are a ******* child of many lineages.

RC-When you see Henry Moy, John Chen, Mickey Chan or other seniors of the Moy Yat clan, they have real skill. I am grateful for the martial arts I learned from the Moy Yat family and remember the kindness from Henry Moy when he reviewed my sets and taught me the Luk Dim Boon Gwun and shared with me what he knew of the Baat Jaam Dao.

RC-“The hatred I have towards the Moy Yat family
fueled my energy to continue to study Wing Chun.”

*Do I need to add anything?

RC- I kept my word with my estranged Sifu Lee Moy Shan
when I published Complete Wing Chun, and never used his name in all the years I taught, and I certainly acknowledged those seniors who helped me and thanked the Moy Yat family in the book.

*Did you list what "fueled your energy" in the book? LOL!

RC- Sure, which I used to channel my energy constructively

*It's clear you are misguided and should not be taken seriously.
:rolleyes:

[anerlich]

Robert please tell us more about "the martial world" It's clear you are a ******* child of many lineages.

What's the down side? Is that an iinsult or compliment?

Many people have had to switch instructors, even change styles, due to no fault of their own. And some because they have the opportunity to see "the martial world" through more than one instructor's eyes.

Benny's been around a few blocks himself, and probably deserves the mantle as much as Robert does.

FWIW, I too am a ******* child, and proud of (most of) my various MA teachers.


It's clear you are misguided and should not be taken seriously.

Only a few people are taking any of this seriously. You, unforunately, seem to be one of them!:p

[Ultimatewingchun]

Man...you guys should either slug it out or shut up. This is really getting ugly. :rolleyes:

[canglong]

Many people have had to switch instructors, even change styles, due to no fault of their own. That is perfectly understandable but that is not the case in this particular instance.
Only a few people are taking any of this seriously. You, unforunately, seem to be one of them!Anerlich, Serious is a natural knee jerk response when others try to make light of your sifu no one should be faulted for that. Chango is a warrior in every sense of the word and as such he understands sometimes diplomacy must be delivered by a good foot soldier. Chango also being one of the few people around for all or most of the things in question on this thread brings true experience to his post that others only wish they could.

[Chango]

Many people have had to switch instructors, even change styles, due to no fault of their own. And some because they have the opportunity to see "the martial world" through more than one instructor's eyes.


Point well missed. The point was that he has no idea about Mo duk or the "martial world" if he has never been anything but a disrespectful derlick student. Having never moved beyond being a casual student. :cool:

I have always been encouraged by my Sifu to be a student of all martial arts. Showing healthy respect for all martial arts. :p


Terence,
Did I just read this correct? did you just brag about getting your A$$ kicked? LOL! I think it's common knowlege that if you are learning MMA, BJJ, etc... that you get yours handed to you while doing so. But I think everyone here already knows that. ( I could be wrong) So I don't think bragging about that aspect really accomplishes anything! W.T.F I don't think this thread has accomplished anything. So here we go again. :D

[anerlich]

Chango is a warrior in every sense of the word and as such he understands sometimes diplomacy must be delivered by a good foot soldier.

Sounds pretty much exactly what Alan was doing.

Like Victor said, this is getting worse than any of the previous b!tchfests alone similar lines. Much more than a $5 bet on the line here.

[canglong]

Man...you guys should either slug it out or shut up. This is really getting ugly.Victor,
When Alan Orr asked the question that you knew would lead down this path and you had every opportunity not to answer and fall prey to his lead you chose not to. Now your own thread is the benefactor of your own unwillingness to "shut up" you are hardly in a position to ask others to do something you yourself were incapable of doing.

[canglong]

Sounds pretty much exactly what Alan was doing.Yeah pretty much except as a long distance student he didn't experience these things in person like Chango.

[anerlich]

Point well missed.

Opinon noted. *yawn*

[Liddel]

From an outsider that has no bias at all in this matter,
From a human being and not a martial artist - this is a liitle ridiculous guys -

Let it lay, be happy with what you have.

[samson818]

All these Wing Chun Boxers and no Gong Sau matches yet.

[junmo]

I with Mr Bussey - this makes for great reading when I'm meant to be working - kinda like the Bold and the Beautiful but more eloquent. :D

[t_niehoff]

Terence,
Did I just read this correct? did you just brag about getting your A$$ kicked? LOL! I think it's common knowlege that if you are learning MMA, BJJ, etc... that you get yours handed to you while doing so. But I think everyone here already knows that. ( I could be wrong) So I don't think bragging about that aspect really accomplishes anything! W.T.F I don't think this thread has accomplished anything. So here we go again. :D

No brag intended, Chango, just stating the truth. And I'll tell you another truth: so is anyone and everyone who is out there really fighting, they get hit, choked out, submitted, tapped, and every other thing you can think of done to them. Even the best. Go visit the Militech camp sometime. So if you aren't getting your ass kicked, you aren't fighting. End of story. That's the nature of the game we play. Without the punishment, there is no real development. And no real knowledge.

I pointed this out because if you are used to this, if this is your routine, challenges or intimidation become meaningless to you. And your perspective on things is very different from those who don't. For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better.

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

First of all, Tony...when I said "you guys" I was referring to Robert Chu and Benny Meng....and btw...the last time I looked - I'm a sihing to one of them in the Moy Yat lineage and an uncle to the other one in the same lineage. (Robert mentioned Henry Moy, John Cheng, and Mickey Chan...perhaps you should inquire as to what these 3 men thought/think about my wing chun knowledge and abilities - as I came up through the system with the 3 of them at the same time...and spent many hours/years working out with them).

So I'll say whatever I want about that.

As to your other remarks about how I should "have known better"...yadda,yadda...

Who says I have some obligation NOT TO GIVE MY OPINION ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TWC AND HFY???


....you?


LOL.


And furthermore....go back and read my post carefully - as I purposely did not add any fuel to the fire by speculating out loud what I REALLY think the relationship between the two systems probably is. Trust me...it would make you cringe in your seat.

So let it go, Tony. Let it go.

[leejunfan]

No brag intended, Chango, just stating the truth. And I'll tell you another truth: so is anyone and everyone who is out there really fighting, they get hit, choked out, submitted, tapped, and every other thing you can think of done to them. Even the best. Go visit the Militech camp sometime. So if you aren't getting your ass kicked, you aren't fighting. End of story. That's the nature of the game we play. Without the punishment, there is no real development. And no real knowledge.

I pointed this out because if you are used to this, if this is your routine, challenges or intimidation become meaningless to you. And your perspective on things is very different from those who don't. For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better.

Terence

Bravo Terence... BRAVO!

[passing_through]

Just so you understand the background

Alan came to hfy108.com and asked some questions. Some discussion ensued. People started to get to know each other/feel each other out (which should have been anticipated given the history of Robert Chu and HFY). Disagreements ensued. The past came back to the present... and then Robert Chu posted a poorly veiled re-hash of his insinuations about HFY on rene's website (where it seems that HFY people can't sign on). Not sure why Robert did what he did ... But that's the background of "this" current situation, based on years of history... It's a shame that Alan and Master Meng were working to make things smoother and then Alan's own instructor undermind those efforts.

To see what Robert is trying to get out from under, go here (http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1932&perpage=15&pagenumber=6) (starts in the 2nd post on page 6 of the thread).

It's funny to see Robert trying to play the humble guy when he's so strongly opinionated about everything. I guess GM Gee and GM Hoffmann couldn't see Robert for who he was... according to Robert, Master Meng's the reason his relationships were strained... to see the other side, hit that link above. As for Robert having a good relationship with GM Gee... that's Robert's opinion. Doesn't mean it was reality.

And Ternace, For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better

I think it would be obvious that the meaning and implication of "master" and "grand master" can have a different connotations in different contexts... but I guess that's too high-falootin' a type of thinkin' fer some of "da f1gh+r5" out there.

However, agreed that there is a time and place for hand-on exchange with little limitations... but that's just training methodology... big whoop. hundreds or thousands of years of history, tradition, and etiquette... just junk it all because because... getting rid of social mores for no other reason that to get rid of them certainly worked for the hippies, too. There's a difference between Tradition and Convention... free exchange is part of Tradition. What passes for most martial arts is Convention. Tradition is alive and changes with each generation while simultaneously maintaining a timeless practicality to it; it force you to face reality. Convention clings to dead and empty ritual, providing a buffer from dealing with reality. Check out Thomas Merton some time.

[reneritchie]

Jeremy wrote:


"where it seems that HFY people can't sign on"

Anyone and everyone is welcome on http://www.wingchunkuen.com/

It's an automated process, you just fill out the form and hit send, and an email is returned to you from the server with an activation link. Be sure to check your spam settings/folder to make sure you're not missing it.

If anyone has any trouble whatsoever, just leave me a PM and I'll personally make them an account right away.

Looking forward to seeing your posts!

[passing_through]

Everyone is free to believe what they want but when you start to go out of your way to directly accuse others of lying and intentionally misleading people, that says a lot about your character.

Remember, all the politics started in 2007 with Robert Chu.

To bring up Andreas is also funny; Andreas Hoffman no longer teaches at the VTM or wants much to do with them.

Guess Robert is out of the loop on this one... Master Meng and GM Hoffmann (note spelling) have a good relationship and communicate on a fairly regular basis.

Andreas has also said to me that HFY looks like TWC.

Interesting... but…

According to the VTM, all Wing Chun comes from the Southern Shaolin Temple. Therefore, it would make sense that Hung Fa Yi, Traditional Wing Chun, and Chi Sim Weng Chun all share similarities in a certain way. But each family also preserves a unique identity. For example, Chi Sim and HFY maintain Kiu Sau. TWC doesn't have Kiu Sau. HFY and TWC maintain Chi Sau. Chi Sim doesn't have Chi Kiu. These aren't different words for bridging exercises either. Each term represents a different category of training for specific parts of the body, specific tactics and strategies, and specific ranges. By analogy, they are different types of engines. A Battleship engine is different from a Tank engine is different from an Airplane engine is different from a Submarine engine. The laws of physics apply to each the same, they are made of (mostly) the same types of parts and materials, but each has unique, specific requirements best suited to the environment in which it operates. So quoting GM Hoffmann as saying that HFY and TWC are similar doesn't mean a whole lot. What's the context in which he is referring? It's possible that he meant from a Kiu Sau perspective. Robert’s quote doesn’t give the context of it so it can be misleading to the uninformed.

The situation is like math. Any kid can learn + and - and the numbers 1-10. Algebra has + and - and the numbers 1-10 but they are used differently. Same with calculus: same parts but different use. Robert's kinda like a kid... sure there's similarities between basic math, algebra, and calculus but is a kid learning basic math qualified to talk about the distinctions between all three? Using Algebra won't build you an airplane. You need more specific training. Robert likes to talk about letting application be your Sifu. If application is all he’s working with, he’s set a very low standard for himself and his students. Trial and error is a long way to go to get anywhere. And for Robert, it didn't seem to work too well: his own Sifu disowned him, his Sigung said his skill was lacking, GM Cheung said Robert didn't understand basic Wing Chun concepts (like one hand can trap two), and GM Hoffmann totally owned Robert in free Kiu Sau. For someone who likes to tear down others, he certainly doesn't have very far to fall himself.

Again, everyone is free to believe what they want. But Robert Chu takes thing a step ****her, making personal attacks. Saying you agree with 'this' or 'that' is fine too. But saying that this instructor is the king of whatever takes things too far. It's the lowest form of character. What is Robert Chu really about? He openly criticized HFY as not being Wing Chun – he’s done the same with Chi Sim… Robert’s even felt the need to “quality check” a recognized instructor like Sifu David Peterson. Robert collected information from GM Hoffmann to write an article on Chi Sim and promote the lineage, that article still hasn't materialized, but in the meantime Robert – who had the gall to tell GM Hoffmann that Hoffmann’s own instructors mistranslated the 18 Kiu Sau and wrote the “correct” translations – started teaching some of the Chi Sim information as his own without giving credit to the Chi Sim family under the Chu Sau Lei name. He's not much of an expert, is he? On the other hand, the VTM openly acknowledged its relationship with GM Hoffmann, promoted several workshops, helped to produce a DVD, and continued to maintain a friendly relationship. I can't speak for Robert's relationship with GM Hoffmann so I won’t.

People are seeing one side of things. Can you see both sides? Robert’s students are welcome to see the tape… but be careful. What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that? Anyone can make up a rumor… at one time Robert Chu called HFY a cult but Alan Orr’s the one with Chu's name tattooed on his body.

The current situation is not about lineage, skill, or history… it’s about the lack of character in one person: Robert Chu. Robert’s been free to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants when he wants… and now the consequences of those actions are coming out.

[anerlich]

Yeah pretty much except as a long distance student he didn't experience these things in person like Chango.

BFD.

Chango has as much right as anyone else to fling sh!t at his or his seniors' percieved enemies. As he's pointed out to me on a few occasions, it's a public forum, everyone has a right to post what they want.

This behaviour makes him no better or worse than any of the other parties involved.

But the sh!t-flinging behaviour makes your assertions of any special claims he has to warriorhood or any other claims to some sort of noble aim patently ridiculous.

Give up the hero worship. You sound like an eight year old.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Aaaaaahhhh, YES...

I just love the smell of napalm in the morning! :eek: :cool:

(Robert Duvall in "Apocalyse Now"). :D

[Wayfaring]

No brag intended, Chango, just stating the truth. And I'll tell you another truth: so is anyone and everyone who is out there really fighting, they get hit, choked out, submitted, tapped, and every other thing you can think of done to them. Even the best. Go visit the Militech camp sometime. So if you aren't getting your ass kicked, you aren't fighting. End of story. That's the nature of the game we play. Without the punishment, there is no real development. And no real knowledge.


As much as I think Terence is full of it mostly, I agree with this and can relate to it. And although I don't live in the midwest, visiting MFS and getting tapped by Matt Hughes and Robbie Lawler sounds like a d@mn good time!



I pointed this out because if you are used to this, if this is your routine, challenges or intimidation become meaningless to you. And your perspective on things is very different from those who don't. For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better.

Terence

Why don't you tell that to "Professor" Carlson Gracie? And if you think challenges and intimidation aren't in MMA, then I'd question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.

[t_niehoff]

Everyone is free to believe what they want but when you start to go out of your way to directly accuse others of lying and intentionally misleading people, that says a lot about your character.


What does it say about character when a person goes around spreading HFY oral history as "the truth" or "the true history of wing chun" when they know they have no real evidence -- evidence that is independently verifiable -- to support those claims?

What is that saying about people who live in glass houses? ;)




According to the VTM, all Wing Chun comes from the Southern Shaolin Temple.


THEN WHY DON'T YOU PROVE WITH INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TTHAT HFY EXISTED PRIOR TO GARRETT GEE? If you can't prove your lineage back one generation, how can you say it goes back to the Shaolin Temple? LOL!



Therefore, it would make sense that Hung Fa Yi, Traditional Wing Chun, and Chi Sim Weng Chun all share similarities in a certain way. But each family also preserves a unique identity. For example, Chi Sim and HFY maintain Kiu Sau. TWC doesn't have Kiu Sau. HFY and TWC maintain Chi Sau. Chi Sim doesn't have Chi Kiu. These aren't different words for bridging exercises either. Each term represents a different category of training for specific parts of the body, specific tactics and strategies, and specific ranges. By analogy, they are different types of engines. A Battleship engine is different from a Tank engine is different from an Airplane engine is different from a Submarine engine. The laws of physics apply to each the same, they are made of (mostly) the same types of parts and materials, but each has unique, specific requirements best suited to the environment in which it operates. So quoting GM Hoffmann as saying that HFY and TWC are similar doesn't mean a whole lot. What's the context in which he is referring? It's possible that he meant from a Kiu Sau perspective. Robert’s quote doesn’t give the context of it so it can be misleading to the uninformed.


First of all, your explanation for these various *drills* or exercises isn't correct IMO. Second, the "fact" that a branch of WCK has or doesn't have some drill does not prove relationships -- you only prove lineage by proving lineage. Branches can "adopt" drills from other unrelated lienages (for example, HFY could have taken kiu sao from chi sim, which seems likely since it is not mentioned by HFY until fater the VTM's association with Hoffman) or drop drills from their syllabus and still be realted.



The situation is like math. Any kid can learn + and - and the numbers 1-10. Algebra has + and - and the numbers 1-10 but they are used differently. Same with calculus: same parts but different use. Robert's kinda like a kid... sure there's similarities between basic math, algebra, and calculus but is a kid learning basic math qualified to talk about the distinctions between all three? Using Algebra won't build you an airplane. You need more specific training. Robert likes to talk about letting application be your Sifu. If application is all he’s working with, he’s set a very low standard for himself and his students. Trial and error is a long way to go to get anywhere. And for Robert, it didn't seem to work too well: his own Sifu disowned him, his Sigung said his skill was lacking, GM Cheung said Robert didn't understand basic Wing Chun concepts (like one hand can trap two), and GM Hoffmann totally owned Robert in free Kiu Sau. For someone who likes to tear down others, he certainly doesn't have very far to fall himself.


I don't speak for Robert or for anyone but myself, but IMHO all there is is application, the rest is BS. If you think application is such a "low standard" then please by all means show us "the good stuff" in action.



Again, everyone is free to believe what they want. But Robert Chu takes thing a step ****her, making personal attacks. Saying you agree with 'this' or 'that' is fine too. But saying that this instructor is the king of whatever takes things too far. It's the lowest form of character. What is Robert Chu really about? He openly criticized HFY as not being Wing Chun – he’s done the same with Chi Sim… Robert’s even felt the need to “quality check” a recognized instructor like Sifu David Peterson. Robert collected information from GM Hoffmann to write an article on Chi Sim and promote the lineage, that article still hasn't materialized, but in the meantime Robert – who had the gall to tell GM Hoffmann that Hoffmann’s own instructors mistranslated the 18 Kiu Sau and wrote the “correct” translations – started teaching some of the Chi Sim information as his own without giving credit to the Chi Sim family under the Chu Sau Lei name. He's not much of an expert, is he? On the other hand, the VTM openly acknowledged its relationship with GM Hoffmann, promoted several workshops, helped to produce a DVD, and continued to maintain a friendly relationship. I can't speak for Robert's relationship with GM Hoffmann so I won’t.


I find it ironic that for people who seem so concerned about "personal attacks" that this is all we get from you. ;)

I suppose you have studied with Robert to know what he teaches as part of his CSL WCK curriculum? Hmm? No? I guess he must be holding out all the chi sim stuff on us that train with him.



People are seeing one side of things. Can you see both sides? Robert’s students are welcome to see the tape… but be careful. What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that? Anyone can make up a rumor… at one time Robert Chu called HFY a cult but Alan Orr’s the one with Chu's name tattooed on his body.

The current situation is not about lineage, skill, or history… it’s about the lack of character in one person: Robert Chu. Robert’s been free to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants when he wants… and now the consequences of those actions are coming out.

Just because people say negative things doesn't mean the things they say are untrue. ;) There is an easy way to counter people who say negative things about HFY -- provide independently verifiable evidence that what you say is indeed truthful. It's really simple. The complaints about "character" are only a dodge -- a way to stir things up to distract people from the real issue: FHY/VTM's utter lack of independently verifiable evidence to support most of their claims.

Question: where is the independently verifiable evidence that HFY existed prior to Gee or that Wang Ming existed and was skilled in WCK?

Answer: That snake, Robert Chu! Let me tell you this is all his fault, he's just trying to . . . blah, blah, blah.

Terence

[Savi]

Terence, the one thing all your input is lacking is information. Without information all your logic flow can't connect. There are a few points you are missing, or seem to not understand because of your fixation on "things". I'll just point out two of them:

1. without learning HFY or Chi Sim - your perspective and analysis is very shallow. The Chi Sim Kiu Sau and HFY Kiu Sau are not the same at all. I am no expert on Chi Sim, but I have played with its Kiu Sau and I am quite aware on the nature of HFY's many Kiu Sau categories. I have learned enough of both to know they are very different. In other words: THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, nor are they borrowed or reguritated from one another. You can't say the same, now can you? Your presumption on the Kiu Sau matter doesn't mean a whole lot cuz of your lack of experience in this matter. Robert's opinion on the Kiu Sau topic is also severely lacking in research.

and this is the BIG point:

2. in the case of Robert Chu, I highly doubt that (considering his history of interactions with other kung fu Sifu, and unscrupulous sense for etiquette) he deserves anything from HFY at all. So demand all you want about "INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE" until your head pops off. A bank won't approve a loan to someone with a terrible credit history, and Robert's got a few bankruptcies.

Terence, since when did you become such a knowledgeable expert on all Wing Chun? Hanging around Hendrik too much are you?

TWC = HFY ; NO
KIU SAU = CHI KIU = CHI SAU ; NO

But I'm sure this won't register with you.

[anerlich]

Why don't you tell that to "Professor" Carlson Gracie?

Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.

[leejunfan]

Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.


DOH!!!! LOL!!!!!! :p

[Nick Forrer]

Why don't you tell that to "Professor" Carlson Gracie? .

Professor is the portugese word for teacher. It means the same as Sensei in Japanese. Its not a grandiose unsubstantiated title like 'Master'.



And if you think challenges and intimidation aren't in MMA, then I'd question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.

Sure they go on. But unlike in WC people actually go through with them rather than mouth off on the internet ad nauseum.

[Nick Forrer]

2. in the case of Robert Chu, I highly doubt that (considering his history of interactions with other kung fu Sifu, and unscrupulous sense for etiquette) he deserves anything from HFY at all. So demand all you want about "INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE" until your head pops off. A bank won't approve a loan to someone with a terrible credit history, and Robert's got a few bankruptcies.


Robert seems to be voicing the same concerns that any right thinking critical indivdiual without an agenda have when opinions are presented as indisputable facts (that WC comes from the southern shaolin temple, that HFY preserves that WC in its pure unadulterated form today as it was then, and that all other wc is diluted and watered down).

At the very least HFY seems to suffer from the same problem as TWC namely how come it looks nothing like the other lineages from China e.g. Gulao, YKS, Cheung Bo, Leung Jan etc. All of which use narrow pigeon toed horses and favour a more back weighted stance.

All of the personal attacks seem to me an attempt to divert attention away from the real issues raised. A classic case of 'if you cant attack the argument you have to attack the credibility of the person saying it'. The most absurd seems to be that he charged 1000 dollars for lessons. I make that 100 dollars an hour for 10 hours. Whats the BFD? Thats about the going rate for private lessons (albeit at the pricier end of the market).

[anerlich]

What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that?

It's almost a requirement to be a WC practitioner. For example, a considerable number of Benny's posts on hfy108. And trash talking by all and sundry on here.

The TWC, my lineage, grandmaster is the king of lineage bashers, although Benny seems to be trying real hard to catch up, though I doubt he'd have the stones to openly put his lineage above all others at a VTAA conference like William Cheung did.

Do I like it? Not really. Can I accept it? **** Yeah. He's just another egotist who can't help himself. Lot of that in MA. He's no saint, but **** he can fight. Only fools take all that mouth boxing seriously. Or walk a linguistic tightrope that says their Sifu's trashtalking isn't, when any fool can see that it is.

And yes, William Cheung got ambushed. 1986. Then, we had Mazza/Draheim in 1996. That was initiated by trash talking on usenet (can you spell "deja vu"?). Both Emin and Draheim later admitted they had allowed themself to be used by their seniors and apologised for that. Anyone considering "defending their Sifu's honour" in this latest downward spiral in 2007 (it should be once every decade or thereabouts, so we might even be a little overdue) needs to ensure they do not ignore the lessons of history, and that they too do not allow themselves to be used or drawn into what will be seen later as one of the nadirs of WC. Yeah, you'll get famous ... for all the wrong reasons.

You're not a warrior monk trained by some WC saint, you're just another loser on the web. Face it. Get a life.

[anerlich]

And if you think challenges and intimidation aren't in MMA, then I'd question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.

Pro boxing and pro wrestling would wither up and die without it. That's hardly revelatory.

[Wayfaring]

Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.

Excuses, excuses ;) :D

[Wayfaring]

Pro boxing and pro wrestling would wither up and die without it. That's hardly revelatory.

Right - the point being that Terence is somehow promoting that if you are a real fighter somehow you reach this nirvana point where none of that ever matters, and you drift along in the clouds serenely getting tapped out by Helio's floating head and doing the two-step with Pat Miletich.

[Wayfaring]

Professor is the portugese word for teacher. It means the same as Sensei in Japanese. Its not a grandiose unsubstantiated title like 'Master'.

If you think that 'Professor' isn't a grandiose title, then I'd say put down what you're smoking.

[leejunfan]

Guys,

Don't start bashing Terence because he promotes real training. The FACT.... if you want to be able to say that you can TRULY defend yourself then you have to KNOW you can from EXPERIENCE in non-compliant hard training. If all you do is Chi Sau, SLT and some light WC vs WC "sparring" you are not truly testing yourself. Use your heads! WCK is the "thinking persons" art which I would think intelligent people with even small levels of common sense would know that you "Train how you fight, fight how you train." If you aren't training with the intensity of a Miletich, Gracie or your basic boxing gym then what the heck are you doing and who do you think you're fooling?

Come on WCK'ers..... less talk, more do..... in other words Mo Gong Kau, Gong Sau! peace out :cool:

[Nick Forrer]

If you think that 'Professor' isn't a grandiose title, then I'd say put down what you're smoking.

Its portugese...it translates as 'teacher'...it doesnt have the same meaning as it does in English i.e. head of a university faculty....so no its not a grandiose title...unlike master.

Do I have to explain it again or did it sink in that time?

[Wayfaring]

Guys,

Don't start bashing Terence because he promotes real training. The FACT.... if you want to be able to say that you can TRULY defend yourself then you have to KNOW you can from EXPERIENCE in non-compliant hard training. If all you do is Chi Sau, SLT and some light WC vs WC "sparring" you are not truly testing yourself. Use your heads! WCK is the "thinking persons" art which I would think intelligent people with even small levels of common sense would know that you "Train how you fight, fight how you train." If you aren't training with the intensity of a Miletich, Gracie or your basic boxing gym then what the heck are you doing and who do you think you're fooling?

Come on WCK'ers..... less talk, more do..... in other words Mo Gong Kau, Gong Sau! peace out :cool:

Don't misread me here. I am not bashing Terence becuase he promotes "alive" training. I agree with him. Although he is a bit too much on the SPAR.....derrrrr......SPAR.....drooolll......SPAR side and thinks that will both produce skill and promote world peace, he is a known entity on that extreme side that is probably necessary to balance out a WCK world that has been too filled with the attitude exactly you're talking about.

However, when it comes to history, I do not agree with him or many on this forum. I think that there is a double standard with this "independantly verifiable evidence" talk. I think there are plenty of WCK lineages that have far less REAL evidence than you think. Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say "what does that prove?" and "there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from". TWC has an unsubstantiated history that GM Cheung presents, but he has nowhere near the amount of mouth-breathing going on about that you see here. Many other lines have far less to go on than a couple pictures and stories.

I get that a lot of this is backlash from the MKF book presenting a certain viewpoint on history and doing some contrasting to "Popular WC". (Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you're referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages). However, I've heard VTM presentations on history a number of times, and I've never heard anything like presenting it like absolute fact - more like "this is what we think based upon research". The research done if you look at it really isn't a whole lot different from other types of lineage research (anthropology based). There are artifacts, hands-on exchanges to look for sets, training methods, concepts (terms), systems. And there's some filling in of the gaps, just like you would read in any book that is about lineages or groups of people we don't know a whole lot about (like the Native Americans of 1000-1400AD in North America). In general, MKF is a more detailed thorough handling of WCK than I've seen out there published. Maybe there are more people out there doing research too - good, the more the better. The fewer the historians you have the less complete a picture you have.

There seems to be a group outside of HFY that has run into a Hung Suen WCK group that was trained by GM Gee's sihing in China or HK. Instead of anyone asking Firehawk where he heard about this, instantly we have demands for "provide the address of the school" or it's not "independantly verifiable". Sheesh - with all you mouth-breathers out there, if I did have "independantly verifiable evidence" type artifacts personally, I'd keep them away from you drooling on them for general principles. There are photos mentioned, and probably "indoor" artifacts that won't be made public. I think MKF has phrases from a kuen kuit recorded in it that are unique. At this point, we don't know much about the Hung Suen group at all.

[Wayfaring]

Its portugese...it translates as 'teacher'...it doesnt have the same meaning as it does in English i.e. head of a university faculty....so no its not a grandiose title...unlike master.

Do I have to explain it again or did it sink in that time?

Dude - whatever. Sifu is a similar term literally. However, "Professor" is used by the Brazilians over is it 5th degree BB or something? It's spelled in English, not Portugese (sifu is not an English word). So when someone sees it on a BJJ web site, do you think it's not marketing related or calculated to sound grandiose?

Master is a term distinguishing some sifu from others who have been teaching longer and have students that are sifus. GM is usually the lineage holder. In WCK pretty much all the lineages that have an organization use that term. Some, like TWC, have actual rankings with that title "provisional master", "master", etc.

It's just a traditional martial art thing versus a modern martial art thing.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Good post, Wayfaring.

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


And Andrew.....jeez...this is friggin' hilarious:

"You're not a warrior monk trained by some WC saint, you're just another loser on the web. Face it. Get a life."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! :D

[Ultimatewingchun]

Will make this post here (even though it also pertains to a different current thread).

THERE'S WAAAAY TOO MUCH "talk" about history, about lineages, about who's a Master and who's a nobody, etc.

Let your hands and feet do the talking.

As I posted on the other thread - I don't have the time anymore to organize a wing chun tournament venue, due to other commitments - but I certainly would support one/train students to participate/attend the event myself as a spectator.

BUT WE NEED AN ONGOING SPARRING TOURNAMENT VENUE...in order to keep things HONEST.

Isn't that what this is really all about? All these internet wars...occasional once-every-ten-year flareups, etc. It's about the fact that without having to SHOW what you can do on a fairly regular basis (ie.- organized SPARRING tournaments that occur say every 4 to 6 months)...

it's just too easy for people to PLAY GAMES with other people's heads.

And then all the "alleged" Masters, Sifus, Experts, Curators, etc. will be exposed - and those who really deserve to have "titles" and get respect will do so.

[Hendrik]

Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say "what does that prove?" and "there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from".



What do you mean by

"there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from?"



Evidentally,

1, the YiK Kam SLT Kuen Kuit and moves which was posted matches with the Fujian White Crane Weng Chun clasical writing before 1850. Also if one is interested in it one could check with the Fujian's White Crane Weng Chun authority masters such as Li Kang in HongKong, PAn Sifu of Fujian.

2 ,the YiK Kam SLT Kuen Kuit and moves which was posted has been presented by Jim to the Gate Holder of Emei 12 Zhuang, or GM Fu. and got acknowledge it is Emei's components, in additional to it matches with the Emei 12 Zhuang's writing.


So, the White Crane of Fujian and The Emei (snake) has been contatcted directly to the sources to varify the likely or possibility of the proposal by Yik Kam's Kuen Kuit and writing. The Crane from Fujian and Snake from Emei. and They got varified. and the Answer is it is very very very very very very very Likely. That is how the SLT got invented by fusing the White Crane of the Fujian and "Snake" of Emei.
BTW. Cho family and YKS family also share the same history view.


Thus, the kuen kuit, the history could be varified within WCK and outside of WCK.
Not to mention, the involvement of Yik Kam WCK in 1850 uprising also was could be varified in the history of Lee Man Mao and the Shang Hai uprising which still has evidents sit in the Dien Chun Dang of Shang hai today.



Now, that is how specific we have gone.


Now, looking at the Shao Lin proposal. Tell us which Shao Lin as specific as the above research? Tell us who in Shao Lin which authority masters could give endosement to the proposal and confirm SLT is a creation of shao lin elements ?

Show us? otherwise, what you propose is a theory without evidents.

See, I am not challenging anyone but willing to examine every possibility. However, in the mission of research, one has to rely on track able sources and evidents instead of speculate and then called that a truth.

In the mean time, my concern about Shao Lin theory is can anyone even identify which Shao Lin? Where? and what components? if not, how could one make conclusion on "others is "popular" and "I am the....."?

Doesnt make sense.


Peace

[t_niehoff]

Don't misread me here. I am not bashing Terence becuase he promotes "alive" training. I agree with him. Although he is a bit too much on the SPAR.....derrrrr......SPAR.....drooolll......SPAR side and thinks that will both produce skill and promote world peace, he is a known entity on that extreme side that is probably necessary to balance out a WCK world that has been too filled with the attitude exactly you're talking about.

I can accept that criticism -- although not the part about world peace ;) -- and it can seem that is all I think anyone should ever do. Of course, there is more to training than sparring but that stuff gets enough attention already.



However, when it comes to history, I do not agree with him or many on this forum. I think that there is a double standard with this "independantly verifiable evidence" talk. I think there are plenty of WCK lineages that have far less REAL evidence than you think. Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say "what does that prove?" and "there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from". TWC has an unsubstantiated history that GM Cheung presents, but he has nowhere near the amount of mouth-breathing going on about that you see here. Many other lines have far less to go on than a couple pictures and stories.


As far as I'm concerned, there is no double standard -- the same standard of proof applies to all. I've made the same complaints about Hendrik's "theory" (which he too calls "fact") on Rene's forum. We just have to accept that if things can't be proved, then they remain unproven. And while you may not see much stuff about TWC *now*, years ago when the claims were being made, there was lots of "discussion". Today, these things have pretty much been ironed out and even most of the die-hard TWC practitioners don't swallow Cheung's account.

One of the real problems is that the VTM, which promotes itself as this independent body of WCK historical investigation, is run by the HFY crew (founder and curator of the VTM is Benny Meng, Gee's #1 "disciple"). *And* the story they promulgate as "the treu history of WCK" is HFY's origination myth. Imagine for a moment how they would feel if Hendrik's #1 disciple was head of the VTM and going around saying "the truth" is that WCK comes from Ermei boxing and White Crane! Without, of course, any independent verifiable evidence. They would be outraged -- and rightly so.



I get that a lot of this is backlash from the MKF book presenting a certain viewpoint on history and doing some contrasting to "Popular WC". (Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you're referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages). However, I've heard VTM presentations on history a number of times, and I've never heard anything like presenting it like absolute fact - more like "this is what we think based upon research". The research done if you look at it really isn't a whole lot different from other types of lineage research (anthropology based). There are artifacts, hands-on exchanges to look for sets, training methods, concepts (terms), systems. And there's some filling in of the gaps, just like you would read in any book that is about lineages or groups of people we don't know a whole lot about (like the Native Americans of 1000-1400AD in North America).


How can you porve lineage -- WCK transferred from person to person, without proving those persons existed, that they knew WCK, and that they taught so-and-so? "Research" isn't conclusions -- it is the hard data. Research that isn't independently verifiable isn't good research. How can the VTM say anything about where HFY comes from if they can't *prove* that Garrett Gee learned WCK from Wang Ming? If they can't prove one generation past Gee, how in the world can they say it goes back to Shaolin? All the "concept" stuff, etc. doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It all just remains pure speculation. Certainly not "truth".



In general, MKF is a more detailed thorough handling of WCK than I've seen out there published. Maybe there are more people out there doing research too - good, the more the better. The fewer the historians you have the less complete a picture you have.


I'm not quite sure of what you mean by "detailed handling of WCK". If you mean from a technical standpoint, I would disagree entirely. From a historical POV, it is pure speculation woven to market HFY.



There seems to be a group outside of HFY that has run into a Hung Suen WCK group that was trained by GM Gee's sihing in China or HK. Instead of anyone asking Firehawk where he heard about this, instantly we have demands for "provide the address of the school" or it's not "independantly verifiable". Sheesh - with all you mouth-breathers out there, if I did have "independantly verifiable evidence" type artifacts personally, I'd keep them away from you drooling on them for general principles. There are photos mentioned, and probably "indoor" artifacts that won't be made public. I think MKF has phrases from a kuen kuit recorded in it that are unique. At this point, we don't know much about the Hung Suen group at all.

You've hit the nail on the head -- we don't know much at all, especially about HFY's history. And that's because there has been no *evidence* presented. I don't know about you, but I try to base my conclusions on evidence not idle speculation. Stories are fine but they are not evidence. Why call people names ("mouthbreathers") because we want evidence that can be independently verified?

The evidence either exists or it doesn't.

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

Hands and feet. :rolleyes:

[Hendrik]

As far as I'm concerned, there is no double standard -- the same standard of proof applies to all. I've made the same complaints about Hendrik's "theory" (which he too calls "fact") on Rene's forum. We just have to accept that if things can't be proved, then they remain unproven. And while you may not see much stuff about TWC *now*, years ago when the claims were being made, there was lots of "discussion". Today, these things have pretty much been ironed out and even most of the die-hard TWC practitioners don't swallow Cheung's account.

One of the real problems is that the VTM, which promotes itself as this independent body of WCK historical investigation, is run by the HFY crew (founder and curator of the VTM is Benny Meng, Gee's #1 "disciple"). *And* the story they promulgate as "the treu history of WCK" is HFY's origination myth. Imagine for a moment how they would feel if Hendrik's #1 disciple was head of the VTM and going around saying "the truth" is that WCK comes from Ermei boxing and White Crane! Without, of course, any independent verifiable evidence. They would be outraged -- and rightly so.






In the field of research, one needs to have the criterion and knowing the field. Instead of jumping into research without any background and resist to look at evidents.

The above arguement is great, however, for me, it is just using a nagation arguement to nagate out every possibility to shows one's own unbiased. That, for me, is about to win arguement on the cost of nagate everything. it just show " I am right ".

Could we shift into the state of provide evidents, examine evidents, and see which is likely?

instead of everyone turn into expert to argue for sake of argue? and when one needs to win the arguement, one is willing to sacrify any facts just to win the arguement for oneself?


It is my suggestion to anyone including Terence, you want prove? ask Gene Ching's help to set up a meeting between the GM PAng of White CRane from FUjian, GM Fu or Emei, there once for all, I present my case and evidents. Gene could put that in the cover of his magazine, everyone can Youtube. Let those real pro to make the decision on the matterial I show, be it Yes or No. I will accept the vedict.

I am willing to go that far instead of playing Pro without any true or only partial knowledge about CMA.

Make my day.

[CFT]

I think the VTM (or HFYWCK family) are hardly in a position to attack Hendrik's lineage and theories. The standard of proof seems to be similar, i.e. both rely on oral tradition and written documentation passed down within the lineage. Both parties have done comparative studies of their WCK art with other arts and have come to different conclusions about their ultimate origins.

At the very least Hendrik can provide proof of his lineage back by at least 2-3 generations, even if you don't accept a direct link back to Yik Kam. At present, because of the HFYWCK family's unwillingness to disclose any more information (which is their perogative and our "duty" to question), we can only trace HFYWCK to one man: Garrett Gee sifu. Where have the other 3 sihing/dai gone?

Let's give it a rest shall we? No one seems to agree what an acceptable standard of proof is. For me it would be documentation outside of one's lineage, e.g. governmental records, oral tradition or documentation in other non-WCK families.

[Hendrik]

At the very least Hendrik can provide proof of his lineage back by at least 2-3 generations, even if you don't accept a direct link back to Yik Kam. At present, because of the HFYWCK family's unwillingness to disclose any more information (which is their perogative and our "duty" to question), we can only trace HFYWCK to one man: Garrett Gee sifu. Where have the other 3 sihing/dai gone?

.


If one just checking out the New Martial magazine of Hong Kong and Wu Lin magazine of China, There is not difficult to find all infomation needed to trace back to Yik Kam from different authors of Cho family in different part of the world and different era from the sixties to today.

Rene and Robert have lots of these articles data.



We know, Yik Kam --> Cho Soon --> Cho Dak-Sing, Sam Chan--> Cho On, Cho Chun --> Cho Hong Choy ...etc.

Cho Dak -Sing has been challenged by a hongkong martial artists. Sam Chan felt to malaysia after got into trouble with fighting. Cho Dak-Sing is the son of Cho Soon.

Sam Chan is living in Ipoh Malaysia before his passed away and has his own WCK group.

Cho On is my sigung. Cho Chun's is also my sigung and have other kung fu decendent who is teaching in China as for today who contribute in Wu Lin Magazine.


The writing of Yik Kam and the art salutation indicate the Tai Ping and the Hung Mun that could be confirm by the Tai Ping revolution history and Choy Lee Fut's writing (since CLF is also involve in TaiPing) and Lee Man Mau, red turban, red boat opera uprising. and link to the Small Knive society of Shang Hai.


And we know Yik Kam is real. because what he record and passed down to Cho Soon and then Cho Dak-sing----> match the big picture and details of written and trace able chinese history be it from the view of Lee Man-Mau records or CLF's description of that era.

In additional, also the SLT training Kuen kuit match the White Crane of Fujian and Emei 12 Zhuang training writing. White Crane is 400 years old which have great influence on Southern Chinese martial art. Emei is 700 years old which influence the Emei martial art.


So, how much more one needs to know that SLT is not created out of the blue but has a parents which is 400 years old and 700 years old which influencing China's martial art development?

So, How much more one needs to know that Yik Kam's writing matched the history of China which is written down officially.




For me, the mystery of WCK creation has been solved. The search is over.



So, why do I present all of these? trying to promote my lineage? trying to promote myself?

NOPE.

IMHO,
My goal is using all of these historical and technical details to activate the SLT or the core of the art. So that everyone sees, we have it all. we just not aware of and seeking outward. it is the time to look inward and train with peace of mind and progress forward. Thus, we preserve our art, be it from ANY lineage.

For it is the Technology of handling Mind, breathing, and physical body that is value able the rest about ego ...etc doesnt matter. Thus, I am not anti anyone or any lineage. I am just interested in Technology of handling MInd, breathing, and physical body.


My only interest in all these history stuffs and kuen kuit stuffs is to make use of them for setting me free and have better grow. Once the history and kuen kuit data is reliable and clear define, then I let go of it and start the journey to set myself free and grow.


BTW:
Why waste live in running loop because of trying to defend an ego or a lineage or some his-story. Those are burdent, if the sifu cant let go of these how could the students? since they are the model. ACtion is an evident and sweet talk is just empty. spending time in these extra-burdent is going to be sufforcating. Why do we a modern human wants to strap ourself with all these burden and got stuck?

In these years, people, especially alot of those in the field of doing/ or claiming to do research in WCK mis-understand me and mis-understand the situation.

See, I dont compete with anyone, I just present my case and share. and if others dont have that much evidents, ( I spend 30 years of my life searching it and look deep into Buddhism, Daoism, chinese history....) then that is not my fault but they dont have enough data yet or having no data due to wrong direction.

But then a strange thing happen, they start to attack me, make all type of story try to discredit me with anything they could twist thinking if they could discredit me the discredit could delete whatever data I have found..

In fact, not to many know me. there is even less who know my skill be it good or louzy. In fact, I found the data, but the data is not create by me or my credit or discredit. Thus, it doesnt matter if I have credit or discredit. For once the data found, it is there always.

Thus, it is sad to read they notion of trying to discredit me thinking that way will delet the data i have found. it is impossible to delete a data which is make public that is a fact. if one dont know how to think straight and subsconciously/habitually love to play mind game or trick for arguement shake without even one aware of what one is doing, how could one do research? Again, that is back to the technology of handling the mind.



peace


Do you know why Angels could fly? because they dont take themself seriously, so they are light weight and could fly high. ----- :D

[t_niehoff]

In the field of research, one needs to have the criterion and knowing the field. Instead of jumping into research without any background and resist to look at evidents.

The above arguement is great, however, for me, it is just using a nagation arguement to nagate out every possibility to shows one's own unbiased. That, for me, is about to win arguement on the cost of nagate everything. it just show " I am right ".

Could we shift into the state of provide evidents, examine evidents, and see which is likely?

instead of everyone turn into expert to argue for sake of argue? and when one needs to win the arguement, one is willing to sacrify any facts just to win the arguement for oneself?


It is my suggestion to anyone including Terence, you want prove? ask Gene Ching's help to set up a meeting between the GM PAng of White CRane from FUjian, GM Fu or Emei, there once for all, I present my case and evidents. Gene could put that in the cover of his magazine, everyone can Youtube. Let those real pro to make the decision on the matterial I show, be it Yes or No. I will accept the vedict.

I am willing to go that far instead of playing Pro without any true or only partial knowledge about CMA.

Make my day.

Hendrik,

"Research" into WCK's history -- which is an inquiry into lineage -- isn't rocket science and doesn't take any specialized knowledge. We don't even need to see the arts themselves! Lineage isn't proved by showing similarities in "concept"; cornish wrestling ( a form of jacket wrestling) looks very similar to judo (a form of jacket wrestling) and uses similar movements, concepts, etc. yet has no connection whatsoever. Similarities can come from all sorts of "sources", from direct connection, from doing similar things, from indirect means, by adopting things, etc. The **only** way to show two arts are *related* is to show they are related by *real people* who practiced together (they can be related in "concept" without ever having any people-connection). Family tree stuff. And to show that doesn't take any specialized knowledge. If that lineage -- line of persons -- cannot be proved, then any relationship remains speculation. It might be possible, it might not. With independently verifiable evidence of lineage, there is no argument possible that a relationship doesn't exist.

Terence

PS - Let me add that I too see similarities in movement/principle between WCK and white crane and think it likely that there is some relationship. However, that similarlity can be attributed to other things besides a direct, or even indirect, connection of the two arts. So it remains in my mind speculation at this point. That relationship can only be proved by independently verifiable evidence of lineage. I know that stories of white crane people being on the red boats exist - but these are stories.

[Hendrik]

Hendrik,

"Research" into WCK's history -- which is an inquiry into lineage -- isn't rocket science and doesn't take any specialized knowledge. ...



You are right of couse in your point of view.


Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject.


Some will go to Korea to Germany to search for the involvement of WCK to the uprising. Instead of following the path of Lee Man Mau, the TaiPing revolution,and the Small Knive society to Shang Hai of China.... Sure they are right but find different things or nothing.

Some argue for arguement sake due to habitually or subsconciously triggle by the emotion or feeling "just needs to win any arguement". They are also right.



one sure doesnt need any specialized knowledge to do research, and garbage in garbage out. anyone is wrong? nope, generate garbage is also right for those who love to generage garbage.




Best Regars
Lots of love and have a nice give end.

[Hendrik]

Hendrik,

"Research" into WCK's history -- which is an inquiry into lineage -- isn't rocket science and doesn't take any specialized knowledge. ...



You are right of couse in your point of view.


Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject was. similar to we in the west love to define what is WCK with our 2007 western educate mind set and sure we think we are right.


Some will go to Korea to Germany or Mars to search for the history and involvement of WCK to the uprising and....

Instead of following the path of Lee Man Mau, the TaiPing revolution,and the Small Knive society to Shang Hai of China....

Sure they are right to go to Korea and Germany or Mars but find different things or nothing.


Some argue for arguement sake due to habitually or subsconciously triggle by the emotion or feeling "just needs to win any arguement". They are also right.

I talk all day long about Chan Chan Chan, but keep fighting to feed my ego and continous on feeding the forever unsatisfying trist of ego; without a rest even for one second. and I call that I Know Chan or Zen. am I right? Yes, I am right. I only dont know when and where to drop my ego. and I am right. hahahaha.

See, Terence, everyone is right.



Best Regars
Lots of love and have a nice give end.

[t_niehoff]

You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject..

An interesting circular tautology! Absurd, but interesting.

Do you think that I cannot understand the lineage of judo because I have a "western mindset" and am not a product of Japan of 1900? Why is it that all the "WCK historians" can't provide independently verifialbe evidence of lineage? Because it doesn't exist. So then we get treated to speculations, where various sources of stories, legends, similarities are cherrypicked (you pick the one's that support your theory and disregard the others), linked together, and presto!, your theory is proved. But they are all built like a house of cards, one speculation or assumption on top of another. The arguments boils down to who cherry-picked from the stories better! And the really funny (sad) part is that people get so attached to these unimportant stories and theories.

Terence

[Hendrik]

An interesting circular tautology! Absurd, but interesting. -----


You sure are right!
When is the last time have you agree that you are wrong?




Do you think that I cannot understand the lineage of judo because I have a "western mindset" and am not a product of Japan of 1900? ------


I dont think.
and I dont think as you think.
and I dont make the above speculation and ask others these type of question.

If I intend to know whether you have understanding or not, I simply ask you to share your view, if your view fit the japanese judo teaching and trandition of 1900. then, you understand. if your view doesnt fit. then you dont, why do I have to think?

why do I have to run my mind CPU instead of just ask and observe?

That is the WCK concept of Asking hand right? hahaha






Why is it that all the "WCK historians" can't provide independently verifialbe evidence of lineage? Because it doesn't exist. ---


You are right. and when is the last time you agree or admit you are wrong?





So then we get treated to speculations, where various sources of stories, legends, similarities are cherrypicked (you pick the one's that support your theory and disregard the others)....-----


You know, based on the above post, you are right. Evidentally, you love to speculate and then speculate the outcome too. and what is speculation? mental exercise which might or might not reflect what is the situation. IMHO.


btw since you mind is habitually not practicing Mun Sau or asking hand, but speculation, do you really know WCK? if yes strange how come it doesnt shown in you mind set?



Terence, from your action above, we know you dont know the Concept or Traditional of Chinese Kung Fu in 1850.

That concept is the concept of Tien Yan hap yat in cantoness or Heaven and Man unite into one.

What is that means?
Asking hand, and listern to the hand as in Chi Sau or physical handling.
Ask and observe others action as for mind handling.

See, Without knowing this you dont know Kuen Choong Sum fat or "strike source from mind/heart".
For your heart/mind is used for speculation not use for asking/listerning/ and issuing.



So do you understand the WCK with a "speculative mindset" ?
Nope your action show you dont.




So are you right? sure, am I wrong sure. hahaha.


peace

[Wayfaring]

What do you mean by

"there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from?"


Hendrik,

That's only part of the quote. My whole quote is "could be spin doctored [attacked] to say there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from".

My point is I think Terence is trying to use math logic to solve an anthropology problem. Or more direct to his background, I think his background in law is imposing certain standards for "provable research" that may be true in court, but isn't so true in history or anthropology.

I've read enough of your posts to get the impression you probably are a historian. Honestly, I'm not sure I understand all of your Emei / white crane postulates or research, probably because you don't write very clearly, possibly because of a language barrier or English as not your primary language. (Also, possibly because you seem to have a strange attachment to old Barry Manilow / Beatles lyrics and intersperse that into your writings, which really gives me horrible mind pictures of bad karaoke ;) ).

What I can appreciate from historians / history is more from my experience. I'm a white guy (WASP) from America, so in my education I've read much more on Western civilization than Eastern. Many historian authors present different viewpoints, and in my opinion reading all of the viewpoints, even completely opposite ones, help give you a better picture of history. I don't really read in history books I'm familiar with any kind of levels of "independantly verifiable evidence" like I hear from Terence, which sounds like more of a legal standard of proof. Historians look for stories, artifacts, meet people, and write about those including their opinions filling in gaps. The more details they find about people, artifacts, etc, and intersperse with their writings, the more they sound credible (which doesn't necessarily mean they are right).

Historians have differing opinions. That's fine with me, and I think that's what you may be getting at with your western vs. eastern mindset comments - "only one truth" vs. "different perspectives on truth". In my opinion, the more historians you have presenting their perspectives, the bigger view you have on history.

Anyway, the only reason your viewpoints haven't been taken as seriously in my opinion is partially your writing style and partially that you have not gone through the exercise of distilling your ideas and writings down through the publishing industry.

I think with all the history stuff it would be great for many more projects that turn out books. Write books to exercise your mind, and spar to exercise your body.

[t_niehoff]

WCK history is a history of *people* who practice WCK. It's not "anthropology". It's not a question of "cultural mindsets". How do you prove person Z learned WCK from person Y? That's it in a nutshell. If you can do that, then you just extend it -- that Y learned WCK from X, and keep going as far back as you can.

Saying martial art 1 looks like martial art 2, they share concepts or terms or whatever, doesn't prove anything because these sorts of things can happen for all sorts of reasons. For example, I can say my martial art comes from Shaolin since it has Chan. But, maybe I adopted Chan a few years ago and put it into my martial art but tell my students it's always been there. These things are too nebulous.

What Benny/VTM/HFY does is what Hendrik does, which is they can't prove lineage so they try to prove "their theory" (what they *want* to be true) by cherrypicking (choosing the parts they like) parts of legends, stories, oral traditions, and in some cases similarities in movement or "principle" in various martial arts, putting those pieces together, and reaching their already foregone conclusion. And to this they put the stamp of "fact" or "truth".

the problem with this approach is anyone can do this -- we can come up with lots of theories, cherrypick what we want to support it, and say it is true.

The only genuine truth is we don't know. In some cases we can extend the lineage back as far as the Leung Jan era. In others, like HFY, we can't extend it back past 1990.

If our concern is actual, provable facts, then let's stick to them.

Terence

[Hendrik]

I'm a white guy (WASP) from America, so in my education I've read much more on Western civilization than Eastern. Many historian authors present different viewpoints, and in my opinion reading all of the viewpoints, even completely opposite ones, help give you a better picture of history. ...


IMHO,

It is not race, It is not education, It is not nationality, it is not historian, it is not view points. it is not that logic.

So

what is it?

It is WE forgot about AWARENESS or Observation of the subject we are investigating. WE are so indulge and melt into our own speculation and thinking and view points and reasoning and logic..... lots of stuffs and no end to it.

Thus, We never see what is going on blind fold by those speculation, thinking, this and that....

One of my teacher is Lester Levenson. He is an American but he is a master of Zen. He said, When things become complicated it is because of EGO. and IMHO I totaly agree with him. It is that EGO with the hidden Agenda has so much fear, so much desire, so much ... that make simple thing complex.

So, what is this got to do with WCK and the history of WCK? same thing, if one remove those speculation and thinking and release one from one's lineage, title, ego...etc. One is much clear.


Mind is like a computer, if one doesnt have the data in it, no matter how one run it , it is not going to give one data. So, one can keep speculate and there will be non conclusive.

The WCK ancestor said " comes accept, Goes send it back.... using silence to lead the action. .... ACtion source from heart...." it doesnt tell us about Anti-Qing, or this programing, or that speculation. It is saying use your awareness or silence and spontaneously response.


How to do non resisting and flow? by not resisting, how to not resisting? not speculating and become limitless. It is not about programing or learning 10000 kiu sau or 1000questions which seems to be leading to the TRUTH but actually greating more confusion because those questions are about wining arguement not about solving issue at all. It is not about speculating with smarth arguement. IT is not about some monks inventing some art for anti-Qing, it is about a path to pointing at one's awareness so that one could use this awareness for thier best in all situation.

Now, how the heck is possible that some monks or nuns could possible invent some universal programing technics to be able to applied to ALL CASES of fighting? (in the first place, buddhist monk and nuns doesnt beleive in programing others. why because following programing is Karma. Aware of and no longer has to follow programing or habit or subsconcious is end suffering as the Buddha tech) Dont believe me? Take the best computer we have today, program all the case about fighting....etc. and still can one cover all? and Why do you think Pentagon Needs Simulation and Real time simulation? that is because programing cant do it and can have it all. Programing is limit to a certain case only and the real life case is not limit ot a certain case. ( dont believe me, predict you are you going to met 1 hours later and start thinking what you are going to do. see if anything you think about will applied?)

For spontaneous stuffs we all needs to use the AWARENESS to the best.


Now, people claim this is Zen and That is Chan, read all those complaining and attacking, and You do it to me, You are bad , You are evil post in this treat. I even question are they aware of what they are writing while they are writing? if they do then is that Zen which is suppose to release and relif one that they practice? If not then do they know Zen?

and Do they Know AWARENESS? That question we all have to ask ourself.

So how can one learn about AWARENESS or obervation? Chi Sau. That simple Relax and listern and Observe. that is the training. Not sitting infront of the computer or Video camera typing and making more video to make more money with the creation of more and more speculation of this technics that technics..this self righteous sound objective question that self righteous fantasy logic ... to lead others who has already confuse to even lost.



Peace

[Hendrik]

What Benny/VTM/HFY does is what Hendrik does, which is they can't prove lineage so they try to prove "their theory" (what they *want* to be true) by cherrypicking (choosing the parts they like) parts of legends, stories, oral traditions,
Terence




I dont speak for Benny, but I can speak for myself. because Benny is not me.

Could you stop speculate and fantasy about what I am doing? You are not me. and I have just post evidents on my lineage upto 1850 above. Everyone is invited to trace what I am presenting.

In addition, the writing record in my lineage fit or match the writing of White Crane of Fujian and Emei 12 Zhuang of Emei. as in the above post, I also invite you to contact Gene Ching to conduct a meeting and video it in youtube for record.

Boy,
You are so into your speculation that you start babbling anything you can think of.


May peace be with you.



This is the last post i will post on this treat. Best luck and have peace.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What a load of crap...:eek:



It's about hands and feet. :cool:

[martyg]

What a load of crap...:eek:



It's about hands and feet. :cool:


And here I thought it was about showing you have a pair, with half the posts around here. ;)

[anerlich]

Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you're referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages

You're entitled to your opinion, but to my mind the sole purpose was an attempt to somehow elevate HFY and CS to some exalted level of purity or quality, the case for which is not made in the book or elsewhere. With the limited evidence and conjecture you wrote about, it couldn't be.

IMO (I'm entitled) this passage and the immature tirade about "internet historians" in MKF ruined what is otherwise a fairly good book by MA publication standards ... though the bar is pretty low.

"Mastering Jujitsu" by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher in the same series is a far better treatment of a martial art's history and philosophy. IMO (I'm entitled).

Where some people see "original" or "pure", others see "obsolete" or "primitive". Where some see "modified" or "impure", others see "progressive" or "cutting edge".

In nearly all fields of human endeavour, particularly the sciences, "scientific" being a label most WC people fall all over themselves in an attempt to embrace, progress comes through continual improvements, experimentation and discoveries. Anyone with a few year's experience can contribute, you don't need to work in the field for 30 years before you're entitled to have an opinion and make real contributions.

It's amazing that one of the few fields in which people claim with a straight face that this doesn't need to, or shouldn't, happen, is TCMA.

[anerlich]

It's about hands and feet.

And head, knees, elbows, weapons. :D

[Savi]

The only genuine truth is we don't know. In some cases we can extend the lineage back as far as the Leung Jan era. In others, like HFY, we can't extend it back past 1990.

If our concern is actual, provable facts, then let's stick to them.

TerenceGM Gee has been teaching in the US since 1975 and has taught 5 different generations of students since then. I've actually met a couple of them. Some of whom are still training with him to this day, and have been since *before* your "1990" barrier. There's even photos from those earlier years on HFY's official website and those pictures are also displayed in the HFY Kwoon in SF for the whole world to see if anyone chooses to visit.

"Proof" of Dr. Wong Ming's existence has been shared with the public before, but was despicably (for lack of a harsher word) refuted as a computer-generated image by very crude characters. On the official HFY website, it is even stated who selflessly donated the *personal* photo of Dr. Wong Ming, acknowledging and giving credit to her personally.

from www.hungfakwoon.com
We would like to pay special thanks to Nancy Sung who was a longtime student of Buddhist Chi Gung from Dr. Wang Ming. Now in her 60's, GM Gee and others at the headquarters had the pleasure of socializing with her on a recent visit to San Francisco. The photo above is an original and dates back 40 years and we thank Ms. Sung for providing it. Thanks also to Matt Kwan and Yohannan for their efforts to restore the photo to it's original quality.
The HFY family did not have to share this private information with the public, but did so decidedly and still we can see how that information has been treated in the public eye by a select few. The HFY family is so grateful to Ms. Sung for providing it, and nobody should be surprised when we stand up in defense for her and for Dr. Wong Ming.

Proof that HFY existed before GM Gee also exists. As some of you may have read online, contact with students of GM Gee's sihing from China have been made in the last couple of years (Allen Kong's thread here on KFO). This is something that I know the HFY family is joyous about! Developments are slowly but surely progressing with our extended family outside the USA. Personally, I cannot wait to meet them and I'm filled with wonder as to what the future holds for the HFY family. This goes without mentioning, but it would be an utter disappointment to the kung fu community at large to see another kung fu lineage fall to history as has happened in the past ~ and especially for it to happen in this era should be unspeakable.

So, believe these things or not - that is up to you. I've seen it with my own eyes.

BTW, lumping the VTM and the HFY family is getting very ridiculous. It has been stated time and time again by both parties that they are TWO separate entities. The HFY family has never stated that they are the original, the oldest, nor the best Wing Chun lineage. My Sigung Master Benny Meng has stated as such, but only as the representative of the Ving Tsun Museum and based on the research that they have done to date. Master Meng also stated that his position on the matter may change if new information proves otherwise. He has time and time again qualified his statements from the position of the VTM curator only. To say otherwise is without a doubt misleading to the general public and disrespectful to both the HFY family and the VTM. It needs to stop.

Respectfully,
Savi.

[anerlich]

BTW, lumping the VTM and the HFY family is getting very ridiculous. It has been stated time and time again by both parties that they are TWO separate entities. The HFY family has never stated that they are the original, the oldest, nor the best Wing Chun lineage. My Sigung Master Benny Meng has stated as such, but only as the representative of the Ving Tsun Museum and based on the research that they have done to date. Master Meng also stated that his position on the matter may change if new information proves otherwise. He has time and time again qualified his statements from the position of the VTM curator only. To say otherwise is without a doubt misleading to the general public and disrespectful to both the HFY family and the VTM. It needs to stop.


This is a masterpiece of political doublespeak.

The thread was about statements made by Benny Meng on HFY108.com. He can't, with any integrity, say one thing as an HFY rep and something else as a VTM rep. If there's some conflict of interest there (not that I give a rats) that an issue for him and the two orgs.It's more than "very ridiculous" to suggest that the onus is on the wider WC community to ensure they make the distinction.

Who he represents (which has to include HFY with him posting opinons and acting as at least a defacto moderator on HFY108 and you having mengsofaz in your .sig) is less important than the judgements people make on his personal character based on his statements. The "HFY family" and VTM both need to consider how that might reflect on them, for good or ill.

I can see how the "confusion" might be upsetting to you, but if you can't see why people might confuse the two considering Benny's relationship with both, you really are brainwashed.

And that's just a red herring. The issue is statements made by two individuals, and what that says about them. As individuals.

[leejunfan]

"Proof" of Dr. Wong Ming's existence has been shared with the public before, but was despicably (for lack of a harsher word) refuted as a computer-generated image by very crude characters. On the official HFY website, it is even stated who selflessly donated the *personal* photo of Dr. Wong Ming, acknowledging and giving credit to her personally.


If you are refering to the picture on page 45 of "Mastering Kung Fu Featuring Shaolin Wing Chun" by Garrett Gee, Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen then I would say... YES!!! It is indeed a computer generated photo. Anyone can see that. When I first purchased the book I thought the picture was just someones way of "fleshing out" a picture and I thought it was cool. I had no idea people were trying to pawn it off as an actual photograph.

If you want to call me a "crude character" for pointing out the obvious then you need to take more sips of the Kool-Aid :rolleyes:

Just so we're clear...... are you saying that is an actual photograph of a flesh and blood human being? Just curious, I could be misunderstanding you.

[Ultimatewingchun]

It'a computer-generated photo of Marco Polo (in Chinese drag)...he's the real Wing chun Grandmaster amoungst the Chinese - although the system dates all the way back to Christofo Columbo (Christopher Columbus).

[Savi]

Yes it is a real photo. I've seen the actual photo in person, and I can attest to its authenticity. The only difference between the real photo and the one seen in MKF is a crease that was digitally erased from one of the corners. As it was stated on HFY's official website, the photo is over 40 years old; taken sometime around the the 1960's. Like I said, if you don't believe me that's on you. But this photo represents a glimpse into the existence of HFY's ancestors; donated to the HFY from a generation of Buddhist practitioners of Dr. Wong Ming. There is no conspiracy on this topic.

Anerlich, this is what I am getting at. Grandmaster Gee is the only one qualified to represent the position of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun family. GM Gee has never stated that we are the original, purest, unadulterated source for all other Wing Chun. I've heard him on many occasions, even in public workshops, that he's not interested in such a thing. He leaves that subject for researchers to decide. The only interest that he has is to keep the system alive for future generations. Master Meng is not the inheritor of the HFY system, so his position on the matter is separate from GM Gee. Just because he is a disciple of HFY does not mean what he says or believes supersedes his Sifu. The only thing that they both share regarding this position is that the Southern Shaolin Temple is the origination of all Wing Chun.

You stated: "The issue is statements made by two individuals, and what that says about them. As individuals." What two individuals are you referring to?

[Savi]

If you are refering to the picture on page 45 of "Mastering Kung Fu Featuring Shaolin Wing Chun" by Garrett Gee, Benny Meng and Richard Loewenhagen then I would say... YES!!! It is indeed a computer generated photo. Anyone can see that. When I first purchased the book I thought the picture was just someones way of "fleshing out" a picture and I thought it was cool. I had no idea people were trying to pawn it off as an actual photograph.

If you want to call me a "crude character" for pointing out the obvious then you need to take more sips of the Kool-Aid :rolleyes:

Just so we're clear...... are you saying that is an actual photograph of a flesh and blood human being? Just curious, I could be misunderstanding you.You are completely entitled to your observations and opinions.

[leejunfan]

Yes it is a real photo. I've seen the actual photo in person, and I can attest to its authenticity. The only difference between the real photo and the one seen in MKF is a crease that was digitally erased from one of the corners. As it was stated on HFY's official website, the photo is over 40 years old; taken sometime around the the 1960's. Like I said, if you don't believe me that's on you. But this photo represents a glimpse into the existence of HFY's ancestors; donated to the HFY from a generation of Buddhist practitioners of Dr. Wong Ming. There is no conspiracy on this topic.


Seriously.... put the Kool-Aid down!

That is a computer generated picture. I could bring that "photo" to any photo proffessional and they would say the same thing. You either have very poor eye sight or you are indeed brain washed.

By the way.... I have nice bridge to sell.

Please post a link of the picture here so we can all take a look at it.

[leejunfan]

on second thought... now I remember why I originally self banned myself from forums. Have fun with your politics... peace all.....

[Ultimatewingchun]

"Anerlich, this is what I am getting at. Grandmaster Gee is the only one qualified to represent the position of the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun family. GM Gee has never stated that we are the original, purest, unadulterated source for all other Wing Chun. I've heard him on many occasions, even in public workshops, that he's not interested in such a thing. He leaves that subject for researchers to decide." (Savi)


***AND the number one researcher (in Gee's mind) happens to be his number one student, Benny Meng.

So who the hell are you kidding with this garbage, anyway???

Let me answer that for you, Savi....

YOURSELF.

[t_niehoff]

GM Gee has been teaching in the US since 1975 and has taught 5 different generations of students since then. I've actually met a couple of them. Some of whom are still training with him to this day, and have been since *before* your "1990" barrier. There's even photos from those earlier years on HFY's official website and those pictures are also displayed in the HFY Kwoon in SF for the whole world to see if anyone chooses to visit.


I don't doubt Gee has been "teaching in the US since 1975", but he's taught many martial arts (other than HFY) in that time. The question is about HFY. A poor attempt to muddy the waters. Was Gee teaching WCK while he shared space with Chris Chan?



"Proof" of Dr. Wong Ming's existence has been shared with the public before, but was despicably (for lack of a harsher word) refuted as a computer-generated image by very crude characters. On the official HFY website, it is even stated who selflessly donated the *personal* photo of Dr. Wong Ming, acknowledging and giving credit to her personally.


The "photo" you refer to brings up three questions: 1) is it a genuine photo, 2) is it a photo of Wang Ming, and 3) did Wang Ming (if he existed and if this is his photo) teach WCK? You haven't answered any of these with indepepdently verifiable evidence.



The HFY family did not have to share this private information with the public, but did so decidedly and still we can see how that information has been treated in the public eye by a select few. The HFY family is so grateful to Ms. Sung for providing it, and nobody should be surprised when we stand up in defense for her and for Dr. Wong Ming.


You don't *have* to share anything with the public -- why not keep all your claims to yourself! ;) But if you want to make *public* claims, then you should expect to provide public proof of them. Do you think you can make any sort of claim to the public and that we should just accept it unquestionably?



Proof that HFY existed before GM Gee also exists. As some of you may have read online, contact with students of GM Gee's sihing from China have been made in the last couple of years (Allen Kong's thread here on KFO). This is something that I know the HFY family is joyous about! Developments are slowly but surely progressing with our extended family outside the USA. Personally, I cannot wait to meet them and I'm filled with wonder as to what the future holds for the HFY family. This goes without mentioning, but it would be an utter disappointment to the kung fu community at large to see another kung fu lineage fall to history as has happened in the past ~ and especially for it to happen in this era should be unspeakable.


More *claims* by HFY that support the lineage of HFY. Independently verifiable evidence is what proves these things, not more claims.



So, believe these things or not - that is up to you. I've seen it with my own eyes.


People claim to have seen bigfoot too.



BTW, lumping the VTM and the HFY family is getting very ridiculous. It has been stated time and time again by both parties that they are TWO separate entities.


*Saying* this doesn't make it so. You can keep saying it until the cows come home but the reality of the connection of the two is blatantly obvious.



The HFY family has never stated that they are the original, the oldest, nor the best Wing Chun lineage. My Sigung Master Benny Meng has stated as such, but only as the representative of the Ving Tsun Museum and based on the research that they have done to date. Master Meng also stated that his position on the matter may change if new information proves otherwise. He has time and time again qualified his statements from the position of the VTM curator only. To say otherwise is without a doubt misleading to the general public and disrespectful to both the HFY family and the VTM. It needs to stop.

Respectfully,
Savi.

Andrew hit the nail on the head with his reply. The VTM is, by all accounts, an organization that has evolved into one made up of HFY practitioners whose goal is to market HFY as the "original WCK" and its origin myth as the "true history of WCK".

Terence

[Liddel]

I may be impartial but this soap opera is very amusing,

Terrence wrote -

"You don't *have* to share anything with the public -- why not keep all your claims to yourself! But if you want to make *public* claims, then you should expect to provide public proof of them. Do you think you can make any sort of claim to the public and that we should just accept it unquestionably? "

Im also finding the call for "independently verifiable evidence" most interesting.

I mean this POV must go down a treat at your local church.... :rolleyes:

Its not an unreasonable request at face value but -
I dont recall William Cheung providing anything solid to back up his calls of getting the traditional VT from GM Ip :o

In fact i havent seen any evidence that Gm Ip was ever taught Kung Fu :eek:

The fact is evidence doesnt always make sence anyway - do you believe in the magic bullet, aliens that create crop cicles, the divinci code.....

Any credible lie has a certain amount of verifiable truth and/or evidence attached to it....

My point is not to "join a side" here but merely to say - draw the line and agree to disagree for crying out loud :mad:

[Ernie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkDz3pcwnuw

[duende]

Seriously.... put the Kool-Aid down!

That is a computer generated picture. I could bring that "photo" to any photo proffessional and they would say the same thing. You either have very poor eye sight or you are indeed brain washed.

By the way.... I have nice bridge to sell.

Please post a link of the picture here so we can all take a look at it.

Ok genius... take it to your photo professional or whatever passes for one in Syracuse. Any experienced computer imager/animator can tell the difference between a photoshop'd pict and cgi.

[t_niehoff]

I may be impartial but this soap opera is very amusing,

Terrence wrote -

"You don't *have* to share anything with the public -- why not keep all your claims to yourself! But if you want to make *public* claims, then you should expect to provide public proof of them. Do you think you can make any sort of claim to the public and that we should just accept it unquestionably? "

Im also finding the call for "independently verifiable evidence" most interesting.

I mean this POV must go down a treat at your local church.... :rolleyes:


Matters of *faith* (religion) are taken on faith. WCK and other martial arts are not religions.



Its not an unreasonable request at face value but -
I dont recall William Cheung providing anything solid to back up his calls of getting the traditional VT from GM Ip :o


You must be a newbie to WCK. There is do doubt Cheung learned WCK from Yip Man, but is it an open question as to the origin of TWC. These things have been discussed ever since he first began making the claims. There were some very heated discussions on the old WCML.



In fact i havent seen any evidence that Gm Ip was ever taught Kung Fu :eek


We have Yip Man on tape. We have class photos of him. We have the records of many of his sihings, students, etc. The evidence is overwhelming.



The fact is evidence doesnt always make sence anyway - do you believe in the magic bullet, aliens that create crop cicles, the divinci code.....

Any credible lie has a certain amount of verifiable truth and/or evidence attached to it....

My point is not to "join a side" here but merely to say - draw the line and agree to disagree for crying out loud :mad:


It's not a matter of "agreeing to disagree". You might live in a world where evidence doesn't matter (that being the case for you, I guess you just beleive whatever you want to), but some of us are interested in what is factual, what is opinion, what is marketing, what is utter nonsense, etc. It's called discernment, and it typically a quality of an intelligent, educated, and critical mind. And if very useful in making intelligent decisions. To some of those people for instance, claims of being the "most efficient fighting method on the planet" might be interested in seeing some real evidence before spending their money. Others may not want to invest in learning the "original wing chun" if the evidence doesn't back up that claim. These things may not be important in your world where "evidence doesn't make sense", but they are to some others. Perhaps you should stick to your world and let us worry about ours -- where evidence counts for something.

Terence

[Wayfaring]

You're entitled to your opinion, but to my mind the sole purpose was an attempt to somehow elevate HFY and CS to some exalted level of purity or quality, the case for which is not made in the book or elsewhere. With the limited evidence and conjecture you wrote about, it couldn't be.

IMO (I'm entitled) this passage and the immature tirade about "internet historians" in MKF ruined what is otherwise a fairly good book by MA publication standards ... though the bar is pretty low.

"Mastering Jujitsu" by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher in the same series is a far better treatment of a martial art's history and philosophy. IMO (I'm entitled).

Where some people see "original" or "pure", others see "obsolete" or "primitive". Where some see "modified" or "impure", others see "progressive" or "cutting edge".

In nearly all fields of human endeavour, particularly the sciences, "scientific" being a label most WC people fall all over themselves in an attempt to embrace, progress comes through continual improvements, experimentation and discoveries. Anyone with a few year's experience can contribute, you don't need to work in the field for 30 years before you're entitled to have an opinion and make real contributions.

It's amazing that one of the few fields in which people claim with a straight face that this doesn't need to, or shouldn't, happen, is TCMA.

I can respect your opinion. Although the bit about calling an "internet historian" quote an immature tirade is pretty funny from someone who just told everyone on this thread they're a punk on the internet with no life. (which was pretty funny, by the way). I think people around here pretty much live up to the billing stated.

I've read Renzo's book. He has some interesting things to say. That is by no means anywhere near the best BJJ book around though. But if you think BJJ doesn't promote itself as the best thing since sliced bread, you're wrong. That is pretty much to be expected with any martial arts book I've read.

How do you expect it to read? "It's a great WCK lineage but everyone on the Internet on KFO doesn't like it?"

I can't speak for everyone but how I study is learn the concepts and blend them in with my game and what works. Which for me personally is a blend of "science" and "improvement".

[leejunfan]

Ok genius... take it to your photo professional or whatever passes for one in Syracuse. Any experienced computer imager/animator can tell the difference between a photoshop'd pict and cgi.

duende,

are you still mad about making a fool of yourself with my sifu? You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked. but no worries.... I let that go....

"whatever passes for one in syracuse"??? So now you have something against the town I live in? You send me a copy of the picture.... the absolute BEST resolution you can get... and I will take it to a photoshop the very day I get it.

"genius"? He who resorts to name calling ran out of intelligent things to say. This "genius" doesn't believe every story he hears...... unlike some people :D

Anyway...send the picture to the address on my website linked below. Or should I take my copy of "Mastering Kung Fu" instead?

[duende]

duende,

are you still mad about making a fool of yourself with my sifu? You still haven't answered any of the questions I asked. but no worries.... I let that go....

"whatever passes for one in syracuse"??? So now you have something against the town I live in? You send me a copy of the picture.... the absolute BEST resolution you can get... and I will take it to a photoshop the very day I get it.

"genius"? He who resorts to name calling ran out of intelligent things to say. This "genius" doesn't believe every story he hears...... unlike some people :D

Anyway...send the picture to the address on my website linked below. Or should I take my copy of "Mastering Kung Fu" instead?

Dude... take whatever you like.

Your little sideline cheerleader posts show that it is you who can't let things go.

As far as answering questions you asked? Why should I? It won't change the fact that I and many others at the seminar felt that John's TWC skills displayed nothing to support his statement that TWC and HFY drills are the same.

[Wayfaring]

The "photo" you refer to brings up three questions: 1) is it a genuine photo, 2) is it a photo of Wang Ming, and 3) did Wang Ming (if he existed and if this is his photo) teach WCK? You haven't answered any of these with indepepdently verifiable evidence.


You are such a pinhead. Have you tried to "independantly verify" any of this? If not, how do you know whether or not it's "independantly verifiable"? Or are you just talking sh1t on the Internet?



You don't *have* to share anything with the public -- why not keep all your claims to yourself! ;) But if you want to make *public* claims, then you should expect to provide public proof of them. Do you think you can make any sort of claim to the public and that we should just accept it unquestionably?


People are just researching and sharing their opinions. Nobody asked anyone to unquestionably accept it.



Andrew hit the nail on the head with his reply. The VTM is, by all accounts, an organization that has evolved into one made up of HFY practitioners whose goal is to market HFY as the "original WCK" and its origin myth as the "true history of WCK".

Terence

My goal isn't to maket HFY as the "original WCK" or any "true history". My goal is to study the concepts and apply them in a pressure test environment. And to read and educate myself. Most of the HFY people I know have goals to learn and teach individuals. There are like 4 schools I know with people doing it full-time for a living. I'm sure all those probably do some marketing locally in the cities they are in.

The only people marketing anything around here I see is you - marketing BS and misinformation.

[Chango]

I don't doubt Gee has been "teaching in the US since 1975", but he's taught many martial arts (other than HFY) in that time. The question is about HFY.

Once again Terence just because you are not aware of something does not mean it does not exist! LOL!


1) is it a genuine photo, 2) is it a photo of Wang Ming, and 3) did Wang Ming (if he existed and if this is his photo) teach WCK? You haven't answered any of these with indepepdently verifiable evidence.


This is very silly O.K. what independent evidence do you have that your Sifu finished the system under anyone? this brings up even more questions. 1. was he recognized by any credible Sifu to be qualified to teach? 2. why doesn't he have anything good to say about other Wing Chun Sifus? etc..... LOL!


*Saying* this doesn't make it so. You can keep saying it until the cows come home but the reality of the connection of the two is blatantly obvious.


Some one has simply made up his own mind. So I guess I will be the first to say what's the point. you already have your own answers. no one owes it to you to deliver you from your ignorance. It seems Chu sau li has a New Years resolution in place here. But once again the VTM members have no desire to bicker with those who lack respect or integrity. Those issues are yours I honestly hope you work through them.

Alot of people fail to realize that the MFK was only a snap shot of a portion of where the VTM's research was at that time. Some have issues with that and that's ok. Debate it all you want that's fine. That's healthy for discussion and discovery!

The HFY family has not made any "claims" of original or purest WCK. I know it may be hard for some to grasp but the HFY family and the VTM are not one in the same.

As a member of the VTM I have had the great honor of becoming a HFY member. However I can also say that this (being part of the VTM) has also presented me with many honors like training 1st hand with many different Grand Masters and lineages.

I personally felt a deep connection to the Moy Yat family and the Chi Sim family as well. I also really enjoyed my time with GM William Cheung. I can see why people feel very strong about learning these systems.

However I identified personally more with HFY. That does not mean that I loose any respect or put down these other lineages or the others that I did not mention down or in a lesser catagory. This was a personal choice. HFY's path fit me better. But that's just me. I would not trade those experiences for anything at this point!

I've been with Sifu Meng for many years and he has always taught with a open mind. If a person represents a lineage or honestly has dedicated his/her time to learning Martial arts (no matter what system) there is a certian amount of respect due. He has passed this attitude on to me as his student. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Sifu Meng direct some one to train non-HFY lineages to people who call the VTM about WCK in thier area.

It seems that you did not recieve the same lesson in your training. It seems that Chu Sau li does not share this same point of view. From what I've seen it seems that there is alot of discussion on how X lineage does Y and this is where they have it wrong and Chu Sau Li does it etc... LOL! That being said I think you will understand why you will get nowhere demanding "evidence."
If a street punk demands conversation do I really need to address what he ask of me?

[leejunfan]

Dude... take whatever you like.

Your little sideline cheerleader posts show that it is you who can't let things go.

As far as answering questions you asked? Why should I? It won't change the fact that I and many others at the seminar felt that John's TWC skills displayed nothing to support his statement that TWC and HFY drills are the same.

"sideline cheerleading"? WOW!:rolleyes:

BTW... learn the difference.... I let the subject of you and my sifu go.... doesn't mean I don't have anything to say about the OTHER minor subjects.

You and many others? I'm sure it's just YOU. You clearly don't understand martial etiquette. Go reread mine and Johns posts again.... you are clearly in denial... so much so that you deleted it.... but now because you aren't getting your way you're taking back your apology? hhmmm.... telling.... very telling.

"Why should I" you ask?... ummm... because you challenged him maybe? You put out this nonsense about him not "performing" and then when he and I ask you legitimate questions based on facts and not just our opinions you buckle? again.... very telling.....

Your verbal chi sau is not very good.

[Liddel]

Matters of *faith* (religion) are taken on faith. WCK and other martial arts are not religions.

:D Religions are a belief IMO - Martial arts could also be seen as such, i believe in the theory and application of VT. If you believe in your style terrence why bother with what others say is thiers ?



You must be a newbie to WCK.
Yeah i am, ive only learnt for the last Ten years not like some others here. :rolleyes:



There is do doubt Cheung learned WCK from Yip Man, but is it an open question as to the origin of TWC. These things have been discussed ever since he first began making the claims. There were some very heated discussions on the old WCML.

Depends on who you talk to mate... and forget the old WCML, William and Leung Ting - Leung Ting and Lo Man Kam - i could list many more who in the past had arguments and wanted to fight while most here were in nappies, i see all this here as history repeated :o which is why i say drop it.....



We have Yip Man on tape.
Doing Forms he could have copied, not being TAUGHT as i mentioned. :rolleyes:



We have class photos of him.
suggests but does not prove....



We have the records of many of his sihings, students, etc. The evidence is overwhelming.

Youve got so caught up in being right you forget it doesnt prove he was 'taught' kung fu - people can lie/forget/ embelish, besides which, it only creates a perponderance of evidence which is basically saying its more PROBABLE.....so therefore there is a level of FAITH involved....



These things may not be important in your world where "evidence doesn't make sense", but they are to some others. Perhaps you should stick to your world and let us worry about ours -- where evidence counts for something.
Terence

Tisk Tisk man... Evidence is open to interpritation, that was my point, but im an idiot trying to stop other idiots repeating history....for what ?

Sorry Man ill but out. Hope you get what you want from all this, whatever that is ?

[duende]

You and many others? I'm sure it's just YOU. You clearly don't understand martial etiquette. Go reread mine and Johns posts again.... you are clearly in denial... so much so that you deleted it.... but now because you aren't getting your way you're taking back your apology? hhmmm.... telling.... very telling.

Martial arts ettiiquette?? Read some of your own posts. Btw, KUN FU ettiquette does not mean that I have to agree with your Sifu. (who's the one drinking Kool-aid now?) It just means be mutually respectful. That's why I deleted and rephrased my post on my own accord. That's also why when I rephrased it, I didn't change my POV.

If you want another person's POV who was there at the seminar then call any of the other Sifu's who were also there.

Heck, it's your Sifu who brought up the whole reference to the seminar in question anyways.




"Why should I" you ask?... ummm... because you challenged him maybe? You put out this nonsense about him not "performing" and then when he and I ask you legitimate questions based on facts and not just our opinions you buckle? again.... very telling.....

There's no maybe about it. I 100% disagree with John's statement that the TWC and HFY drills are the same, and I've more than clearly stated why. Again, if you can't handle that... then that's your problem.



Your verbal chi sau is not very good.

Definitely not as good as your verbal 'patting yourself on the back'

[leejunfan]

This is all a bunch of nonsense. Type type type here on the internet but when it comes face to face people talk a different story. It will be a great conversation at the next friendship seminar between you and John.

Have fun with your recruiting drive.... I'm done with this

[Savi]

Evidence is open to interpritation, that was my point, but im an idiot trying to stop other idiots repeating history....for what ?Liddel, I do not know you, but just from your comment above I find that one to be one of the most level-minded things I've read on this thread. That comment alone encourages me to believe in this forum.

leejunfan, I do not know you nor have I ever held a discussion with you until now and like I said before, you are completely entitled to your opinions and observations - so far my impression of you doesn't amount to a whole lot of anything meaningful. Of course, you’re not here to impress anyone so my impression should mean absolutely nothing to you. When you spread your malicious thoughts about my ancestors, then it is a crude and disgusting thing to circulate about [anyone’s] family; which is ultimately none of your business. Read your own post:

"This is all a bunch of nonsense. Type type type here on the internet but when it comes face to face people talk a different story."

Tell anyone in the HFY family in person that our ancestor is fake. Think you would do that? Here you are trying to tell me what my house looks like when you’re on the outside looking in. Common sense isn't your slice of pie, so be it. No point in holding a dialog with you. I've clarified my statements as you asked, and that’s all that’s going to happen between you and I.

Terence, if evidence is what you GENUINELY want on the legitimacy of HFY as a system - the best way is to study and learn it. If you GENUINELY want *independently verifiable evidence* as to HFY's lineage, learn from Liddel's comment above. In addition to verifying evidence, what credentials do you have to show that you are qualified to verify anything the HFY puts forth? The HFY has put forth a great deal of information in the past several years, yet how much of it have you *independently verified*? When it comes down to it in the big picture HFY’s history is no different from any others. History is for historians/researchers and for those who are interested in it; you are neither and have stated as such. The fact is, you are not genuine which destroys any sense for integrity in your questioning.

Yet, none of those things matter, now does it Terence? So long as it works, right? You've professed to being all about "application being your sifu". You should stick to that method, as you've got a long hard road ahead of you and these discussions will side track your trial and error progress. When it comes down to what matters as martial artists, it is all about our individual progress and skills in application.

After reading this thread, the one obvious thing is that there are several people who are here not to hold a productive dialog on any level, but to express themselves for the sake of expression. Like my Sibaak Chango said, they've already decided in their minds about “what is and what is not” so this discussion is pointless with those people. I am reminded of the time that Robert Chu told GM Gee "That's not Tan Sau, this is Tan Sau!!!" There is simply no room for open discussion with those guys; no sense for consideration of others’ viewpoints and until the air is less polluted here we’re all going to go round in circles.

[leejunfan]

This is indeed that very last I will speak on this matter.

leejunfan, I do not know you nor have I ever held a discussion with you until now and like I said before, you are completely entitled to your opinions and observations - so far my impression of you doesn't amount to a whole lot of anything meaningful. Of course, you’re not here to impress anyone so my impression should mean absolutely nothing to you. When you spread your malicious thoughts about my ancestors, then it is a crude and disgusting thing to circulate about [anyone’s] family; which is ultimately none of your business. Read your own post:

"This is all a bunch of nonsense. Type type type here on the internet but when it comes face to face people talk a different story."

Tell anyone in the HFY family in person that our ancestor is fake. Think you would do that? Here you are trying to tell me what my house looks like when you’re on the outside looking in. Common sense isn't your slice of pie, so be it. No point in holding a dialog with you. I've clarified my statements as you asked, and that’s all that’s going to happen between you and I.

Let me start off by saying that I never said your ancestor himself was fake..... read again and please conprehend this... I said the photo looks to be a computer generated image. There are computer gen'ed images all over the world of different "real life" people. The people exist.... the photo's are fake. I don't know if your ancestor existed or not. I'd like more evidence for my own personal reason.... those reason.... I happen to like the different histories on WCK. It fascinates me.

Yes I am entitled to my opinions... after all... opinions are: beliefs or judgments that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. I saw the picture... and think it's CGI.... until I'm proven wrong... I will continue to do so. And if someone from your camp wants to kick my ass for thinking so then the problem lays with them.... not I. I mean really... you can come up to me and say that my ancestors didn't exists and all I would do is pull out the actual, and very many photograph's of Ip Man.... futher then that I would just have to say "You are entitled to your opinion" ;)

Of course you have no impression of me. But I do hope that when we do meet... and we will.... that you don't talk crap the minute I'm gone. I'd prefer it done to my face. Does that mean we'll fight to prove something?.... no.... but when you meet someone and then wait until AFTER the seminar when everyone is safely back home to start talking **** is when our impressions of YOU go down the toilet.

Sorry fro skipping around but... none of my business? YOU guys put this info out there.... upon entering information on a forum you made it EVERYONES BUSINESS. We have every right to express our opinions as you have stated and it is not being crude and disgusting. No one ( at least not I) called you all a bunch of flipping hacks who's mothers didn't love them. Now THAT would be crude and disgusting... see the difference? All we are saying.... and apparently it has happened ever since the photo has been released... is that it looks to be a computer generated image... nothing more... nothing less. Don't put words in other peoples mouth.

Anyway... like I said..... type type type.... this I'm sure will all be duscussed in person again. Let me make a prediction. Everyone will be super nice and polite.... it will be a great seminar filled with sharing of knowledge and skill...... then everyone will go home and come to the forums to talk smack.... and that is sad. When will the WCK family ( and that means all of us) stop fighting amongst ourselves and start working together?

In the end... Mo Gong Kau Gong Sau. God bless

Amitabha!

[t_niehoff]

Once again Terence just because you are not aware of something does not mean it does not exist! LOL!


Agreed. By the same token, people claiming something exists doesn't make it so. This is why proof is so important.



This is very silly O.K. what independent evidence do you have that your Sifu finished the system under anyone? this brings up even more questions. 1. was he recognized by any credible Sifu to be qualified to teach? 2. why doesn't he have anything good to say about other Wing Chun Sifus? etc..... LOL!


The shift the burden dodge. The question is about the HFY/VTM's claims.

But since you bring it up, the only way to *know* if anyone is qualified to teach is by the performance of their students. Why does Robert criticize so many in WCK? Simple, because there is so much to criticize. :)



Some one has simply made up his own mind. So I guess I will be the first to say what's the point. you already have your own answers. no one owes it to you to deliver you from your ignorance. It seems Chu sau li has a New Years resolution in place here. But once again the VTM members have no desire to bicker with those who lack respect or integrity. Those issues are yours I honestly hope you work through them.

Alot of people fail to realize that the MFK was only a snap shot of a portion of where the VTM's research was at that time. Some have issues with that and that's ok. Debate it all you want that's fine. That's healthy for discussion and discovery!

The HFY family has not made any "claims" of original or purest WCK. I know it may be hard for some to grasp but the HFY family and the VTM are not one in the same.


You can keep repeating it but the evidence - Benny being curator of the VTM while at the same time being Gee's #1 "disciple" in HFY, the promotion of HFY's oral myth as the "true history of WCK, etc. - speaks for itself.



As a member of the VTM I have had the great honor of becoming a HFY member. However I can also say that this (being part of the VTM) has also presented me with many honors like training 1st hand with many different Grand Masters and lineages.

I personally felt a deep connection to the Moy Yat family and the Chi Sim family as well. I also really enjoyed my time with GM William Cheung. I can see why people feel very strong about learning these systems.

However I identified personally more with HFY. That does not mean that I loose any respect or put down these other lineages or the others that I did not mention down or in a lesser catagory. This was a personal choice. HFY's path fit me better. But that's just me. I would not trade those experiences for anything at this point!


Bully for you! But it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.



I've been with Sifu Meng for many years and he has always taught with a open mind. If a person represents a lineage or honestly has dedicated his/her time to learning Martial arts (no matter what system) there is a certian amount of respect due. He has passed this attitude on to me as his student. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Sifu Meng direct some one to train non-HFY lineages to people who call the VTM about WCK in thier area.


Telling us what a swell guy Benny is doesn't answer the questions posed. And it is not surprising coming from one of his students.



It seems that you did not recieve the same lesson in your training. It seems that Chu Sau li does not share this same point of view. From what I've seen it seems that there is alot of discussion on how X lineage does Y and this is where they have it wrong and Chu Sau Li does it etc... LOL! That being said I think you will understand why you will get nowhere demanding "evidence."
If a street punk demands conversation do I really need to address what he ask of me?

It amazes me how the VTM/HFY can one one hand spread their "message" (marketing) of "a true history of WCK", that HFY oral myth is "fact", that they have done all this "research", yet in the same breath say things like "how dare you demand evidence that what we say is true!". I know that I will get nowhere demanding evidence -- for the simple reason that it doesn't exist! And there is a very good reason it doesn't exist.

Terence

[t_niehoff]

Savi wrote:


Terence, if evidence is what you GENUINELY want on the legitimacy of HFY as a system - the best way is to study and learn it. If you GENUINELY want *independently verifiable evidence* as to HFY's lineage, learn from Liddel's comment above.


I am not talking about the legitimacy of HFY as a martial art, but whether there is any independently verifiable evidence to support the claim (made by HFY/VTM) that its "history" is true and factual ("the true history of WCK"). No one should need to study HFY to learn that or not.



In addition to verifying evidence, what credentials do you have to show that you are qualified to verify anything the HFY puts forth? The HFY has put forth a great deal of information in the past several years, yet how much of it have you *independently verified*? When it comes down to it in the big picture HFY’s history is no different from any others. History is for historians/researchers and for those who are interested in it; you are neither and have stated as such. The fact is, you are not genuine which destroys any sense for integrity in your questioning.


What "quaifications" does anyone need to determine lineage? None. If the evidence exists, then anyone can see it. Who doubts that Bruce Lee learned WCK from Yip Man? Anyone can prove both men existed, both knew WCK, that one learned from the other. Lots of evidence.

The difference between HFY and "others" are numerous. For example, HFY promotes its oral myths as "the truth" or "the real history of WCK", through the clever use of another organization with an "official" and nuetral-sounding name, the Ving Tsun Museum. Or, that the #1 disciple of Gee goes around the world, spreading "the truth" and "the research" of the VTM (the HFY propaganda) without presenting any independently verifiable evidence of any of those claims.



Yet, none of those things matter, now does it Terence?


Apparently it matters to you, or you wouldn't be here. ;)



So long as it works, right? You've professed to being all about "application being your sifu". You should stick to that method, as you've got a long hard road ahead of you and these discussions will side track your trial and error progress. When it comes down to what matters as martial artists, it is all about our individual progress and skills in application.


Again, you are confusing the fighting method itself with the lineage (historical) claims. They are two different things.

BTW, "letting application by your sifu" is what all fighters *do* -- regardless of style, lineage, etc.



After reading this thread, the one obvious thing is that there are several people who are here not to hold a productive dialog on any level, but to express themselves for the sake of expression. Like my Sibaak Chango said, they've already decided in their minds about “what is and what is not” so this discussion is pointless with those people. I am reminded of the time that Robert Chu told GM Gee "That's not Tan Sau, this is Tan Sau!!!" There is simply no room for open discussion with those guys; no sense for consideration of others’ viewpoints and until the air is less polluted here we’re all going to go round in circles.


We're going to keep "going round in circles" until the VTM/HFY provides independently verifiable evidence of its claims. Until that is done, they will keep making the claims, people will keep demanding proof of those claims, and you guys will keep coming forward with the same old attempts to misdirect people.

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

"This is very silly O.K. what independent evidence do you have that your Sifu finished the system under anyone? this brings up even more questions. 1. was he recognized by any credible Sifu to be qualified to teach? 2. why doesn't he have anything good to say about other Wing Chun Sifus? etc..... LOL!" (Chango)


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

"The shift the burden dodge. The question is about the HFY/VTM's claims.

But since you bring it up, the only way to *know* if anyone is qualified to teach is by the performance of their students. Why does Robert criticize so many in WCK? Simple, because there is so much to criticize. :) " (Terence)


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


***ALAS....and here we have the ridiculousness of this thread - and of the hijacking of the Understanding TWC REVISITED thread.

BOTH SIDES...are full of 5HIT !!! :rolleyes:

Yes...Chango is dodging the issues (what else is new about the HFY folks?)...and yes, Robert Chu has NO BUSINESS talking so much trash about other people in wing chun. (Very mean-spirited and betrays a lack of his own self esteem).

Enought of this crap!

IT'S ABOUT HANDS, FEET, ELBOWS, AND KNEES...

Let's have someone step up to the plate and organize an all-Wing Chun SPARRING tournament.

And soon!

Then the pretenders will be exposed - and those with real talent will be recognized.

[t_niehoff]

Victor,

As I see it, there are two issues: the skill issue and the true history of WCK/lineage issue. They are not related, although some try to sell the notion that skill is related to lineage/history (we have the true WCK, you can only get it from us).

The "hands/feet" pertain to the issue of skill, not to the issue of historical claims. I agree with you: a person can prove skill *only* via performance (fighting). In fact, skill only comes from performance. So if people want to discuss matters of skill (technique, tactics, etc.), these things can only be determined by performance (letting application be our sifu).

Whether or not someone has skill, however, is not pertinent to claims regarding WCK's "true" history. Historical claims are proved differentl: by independently verifiable evidence.

Many people do not like Robert's criticisms. Personally, I don't think there is nearly enough criticism in WCK, especially considering how much BS, fluff, nonsense, etc. is present in our art. The good news is that IMO this stuff is beginning to be and will eventually be snuffed out -- due to the NHB/MMA revolution. People will have to put up or shut up, and teachers of fighitng methods will be expected to actually have some fighting skills.

Terence

[Ultimatewingchun]

And as I see it, Terence...

you're just as guilty as the other side in drawing attention AWAY FROM the only thing could ever seriously change the sorry state-of-affairs that exists within the wing chun world today:

ORGANIZED SPARRING TOURNAMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

All the debates/arguments about lineage, history, personal rancor, and "rankings" take away valuable time and energy from the productive endeavor I've been suggesting.

Even with all your "talk" about sparring, sparring, sparring...:rolleyes:

I'm still amazed that you didn't show up in Cleveland, Ohio in May, 2005....btw.

Man...you were really talking up a storm in the months leading up to that !

And Benny Meng wanted to STACK THE DECK in his favor by trying to come with 12-15 people...which Carl Dechiara wisely did not let happen - since it would have given one particular lineage a distinct numerical advantage.

(And so Benny didn't show at all).

Like I said...both sides are full of 5HIT.

[Wayfaring]

And as I see it, Terence...

you're just as guilty as the other side in drawing attention AWAY FROM the only thing could ever seriously change the sorry state-of-affairs that exists within the wing chun world today:

ORGANIZED SPARRING TOURNAMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

All the debates/arguments about lineage, history, personal rancor, and "rankings" take away valuable time and energy from the productive endeavor I've been suggesting.

Even with all your "talk" about sparring, sparring, sparring...:rolleyes:

I'm still amazed that you didn't show up in Cleveland, Ohio in May, 2005....btw.

Man...you were really talking up a storm in the months leading up to that !

And Benny Meng wanted to STACK THE DECK in his favor by trying to come with 12-15 people...which Carl Dechiara wisely did not let happen - since it would have given one particular lineage a distinct numerical advantage.

(And so Benny didn't show at all).

Like I said...both sides are full of 5HIT.

Let me get this straight. The only organized sparring-related get-together put out by all the smack-talkers on this forum had 12-15 registrations from HFY members. AND THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE?????

AND YOU THINK SOMEHOW THIS IS WISE?

Somehow the grappling community doesn't think like that (NAGA, GC, Mundials, etc.) "Dear Mr. Machado, we regret to inform you that your academy HAD TOO MANY REGISTRANTS for the Mundials this year, and this would put your academy at an unfair advantage, so we're going to have to deny them."

Now I've heard it all.

[anerlich]

Master Meng is not the inheritor of the HFY system, so his position on the matter is separate from GM Gee. Just because he is a disciple of HFY does not mean what he says or believes supersedes his Sifu.

This is more hairsplitting political crap. By that logic, you, Chango, Wayfaring, passing_through, and CangLong have nothing of value to say about HFY and your opinions should be ignored.

My concerns with Benny are the unsubstantiated malevolent piffle he's stated on HFY108 and elsewhere about people like Rene Ritchie, Robert Chu and others. Yes, Robert's no saint either. Nor is William Cheung. Benny's made those statements. They speak about his personal character, whether he is or is not an authorised mouth boxer for HFY, the VTM, the Promise Keepers, the Communist Party or the Church of the SubGenius (though he'd need a sense of homur implanted for the last).

I have no problem with HFY or the VTM as orgs. good luck to them. Some of their officers I have cause to wonder about.


You stated: "The issue is statements made by two individuals, and what that says about them. As individuals." What two individuals are you referring to?


Obviously, Benny Meng and Robert Chu, the subjects of the thread. Though I wouldn't like to guess which hat, VTM, HFY, or otherwise you or Benny would prefer he was or was not wearing at the time he spewed his guts.


BOTH SIDES...are full of 5HIT !!!

Hard to argue with that.

[Edmund]

No. (And you're being an a55hole to the gracious organisers who have nothing to do with this.)

The numbers were limited so rather than have 15 guys from one lineage taking up half the spots, it was done via lottery. Fair enough?




Let me get this straight. The only organized sparring-related get-together put out by all the smack-talkers on this forum had 12-15 registrations from HFY members. AND THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE?????

AND YOU THINK SOMEHOW THIS IS WISE?

Somehow the grappling community doesn't think like that (NAGA, GC, Mundials, etc.) "Dear Mr. Machado, we regret to inform you that your academy HAD TOO MANY REGISTRANTS for the Mundials this year, and this would put your academy at an unfair advantage, so we're going to have to deny them."

Now I've heard it all.

[Wayfaring]

No. (And you're being an a55hole to the gracious organisers who have nothing to do with this.)

The numbers were limited so rather than have 15 guys from one lineage taking up half the spots, it was done via lottery. Fair enough?

OK - capacity problem. Understood. But don't misread my post as anything to do with the gracious hosts.

[Wayfaring]

But since you bring it up, the only way to *know* if anyone is qualified to teach is by the performance of their students. Why does Robert criticize so many in WCK? Simple, because there is so much to criticize. :)


By direct contrast, people like Pat Militech (who you brought up), Randy Couture, and many other top name teachers and MMA school leaders don't really do a lot of Internet criticism of other schools, MMA or TMA.

[Ultimatewingchun]

What a load of crap, Wayfaring...!!!:eek:

Benny was told he could bring 6-7 guys (which was the cap set in advance for ANY lineage to bring)....but no....Benny wanted to either bring double that amount or not come at all !

So HE CHOSE not to come.

Gee...I wonder why? :cool:

[anerlich]

Somehow the grappling community doesn't think like that (NAGA, GC, Mundials, etc.) "Dear Mr. Machado, we regret to inform you that your academy HAD TOO MANY REGISTRANTS for the Mundials this year, and this would put your academy at an unfair advantage, so we're going to have to deny them."


This happened a lot with the early UFC's. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were "unknowns", apparently.

[couch]

This happened a lot with the early UFC's. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were "unknowns", apparently.

Wow! Really? Now that's political BS!

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

[Wayfaring]

This happened a lot with the early UFC's. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were "unknowns", apparently.

So apparantly we'll never know if Rick Spain could have taken Tank Abbott when he was in fighting shape. Oh, wait, Tank never WAS in fighting shape. :rolleyes:
He could just bench 600. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_Abbott_benchpress_600lb.jpg

[anerlich]

So apparantly we'll never know if Rick Spain could have taken Tank Abbott when he was in fighting shape. Oh, wait, Tank never WAS in fighting shape.
He could just bench 600. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...ress_600lb.jpg


And your point is ... ?

Rick had 37 successful pro kickboxing matches, over 100 amateur.

He had street encounters in numbers rivalling those others in the WC world who stake their reputations on such things.

He's done what many of you guys and your Sifus claim to be able to do but never have.

In those times, I'm not sure he would have done that well against the grapplers ... and apparently neither did he, as he did start training BJJ in earnest, and now holds the rank of purple belt. He's about 48 now, past peak fighting age, so I guess we will never know for sure. But he has little to prove.

You'd do better to use him as an advertisement for the efficacy of what you do, rather than give in to your apparent need to drag him and others down to your level so you don't feel inadequate.

Marty Goldberg knows more about this specific event than I.

[Wayfaring]

And your point is ... ?

Rick had 37 successful pro kickboxing matches, over 100 amateur.

He had street encounters in numbers rivalling those others in the WC world who stake their reputations on such things.

He's done what many of you guys and your Sifus claim to be able to do but never have.

In those times, I'm not sure he would have done that well against the grapplers ... and apparently neither did he, as he did start training BJJ in earnest, and now holds the rank of purple belt. He's about 48 now, past peak fighting age, so I guess we will never know for sure. But he has little to prove.

You'd do better to use him as an advertisement for the efficacy of what you do, rather than give in to your apparent need to drag him and others down to your level so you don't feel inadequate.

Marty Goldberg knows more about this specific event than I.

I don't really have a point related to Rick Spain as I don't know him. Anyone with a pro kickboxing career has my kudos as a fighter - I've trained with one. I'm sure he's probably a person with a WCK background who genuinely can fight.

You're starting to get wound up a little too tight. I didn't ask you what your point was with the little UFC history trivia divergence.

[t_niehoff]

And as I see it, Terence...

you're just as guilty as the other side in drawing attention AWAY FROM the only thing could ever seriously change the sorry state-of-affairs that exists within the wing chun world today:

ORGANIZED SPARRING TOURNAMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

All the debates/arguments about lineage, history, personal rancor, and "rankings" take away valuable time and energy from the productive endeavor I've been suggesting.

Even with all your "talk" about sparring, sparring, sparring...:rolleyes:

I'm still amazed that you didn't show up in Cleveland, Ohio in May, 2005....btw.

Man...you were really talking up a storm in the months leading up to that !

And Benny Meng wanted to STACK THE DECK in his favor by trying to come with 12-15 people...which Carl Dechiara wisely did not let happen - since it would have given one particular lineage a distinct numerical advantage.

(And so Benny didn't show at all).

Like I said...both sides are full of 5HIT.

Victor,

The question has been (or at least was) about HFY/VTM's historical/lienage claims -- at least this is what Alan asked about, and what we've ben discussing on your hijacked thread. :)

The question of history/lineage isn't going to be settled by a WCK sparring tournament.

Nevertheless, this notion of your's about a WCK "tournament" seems to be an itch you can't scratch. If you recall, I told you when you first proposed this idea that I had the same one *years* before you (ask your buddy Phil - we talked about it on the old WCML). I dropped it for several reasons, mainly because once I began sparring with some really good folks I realized such an event (restricted to WCK people only) was pointless. As I told you *then*, in my view the idea of a WCK-only "tournament" is a waste of time (at least of my time). It's not just the sparring that matters, it is the *quality* of the sparring that matters. I told you during our discussions that for any such event to be useful it should just be MMA/NHB open event and that these can be found all over the place. We discussed this at length. You went ahead with your "WCK tournament", outlining your WCK rules, etc.

While you guys were having your event, I went to a different event that I felt was more productive toward my goals. To each his own.

Of course, you don't agree with me about these "tournaments". I understand that. Even so, I don't feel the need to personally attack you because you disagree with me.

If you or anyone want to visit us here, you're always welcome. But quite frankly, I am only interested in my growth in skill and my enjoyment -- your "tournaments" don't offer me anything.

Terence

[anerlich]

I didn't ask you what your point was with the little UFC history trivia divergence.


No you didn't ask, but it was in response to a post you made about the lack of bias of grappling organisations to various gyms or organisations. The UFC ain't strictly a grappling organisation, I suppose.

But then if your posts don't need a point, why do mine?


You're starting to get wound up a little too tight.

LOL, if I'm wound up too tight, other people on the thread must look like twisted up wrung out dishrags.

[Knifefighter]

This happened a lot with the early UFC's. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were "unknowns", apparently.
Anerlich-
I trained at the Gracie academy for many years. Back in the original days, they actually had to go searching for competent contestants. They even put adds in martial arts publications to get fighters interested in competing. No one with documented fighting experience was turned down.

[horserider]

Enough fighting all families are entitled to their myths HFY can have their myths as well the problem is with the VTM saying a myth is truth.

In 1981 the book Martial Arts of southern China was published in China. This was the work of over 100 PHds etc True scholars and historians. It was about all the arts from the south. Just 1 chapter on wing chun. The purpose of the book was to separate fact from creation myth. Fact everything the VTM says about HFY and its relation to other Wing Chun families is 100% opposed by the facts in the book. Fact VTM says they are researchers and are honest why then have they never quoted the only work by scholars done on the subject of creation myths vs creation facts of southern martial arts? Fact you would fail every basic college history class anywhere if you wrote a paper and did not refer to the only work done by scholars on the subject of your paper. Fact the VTM has never used the book, referenced the book or ever produced any work published by independent scholars to refute the book. Until this is done all work done by the VTM is suspect to say the least. I do not ever expect this to be done since all factual information disagrees with the VTM-HFY myths.

Fact all histories of the red boat operas agree that Lee Man was the head and that those who wore the Red Bandanas were outsiders,local thugs etc that joined the rebellion. In no way was anyone wearing a red bandana a leader or an insider. If the VTM says this is wrong than please reference any published history and show us that you have any scholarly support otherwise it is just a myth nothing more.

[Wayfaring]

Fact everything the VTM says about HFY and its relation to other Wing Chun families is 100% opposed by the facts in the book.
...
Fact all histories of the red boat operas agree that Lee Man was the head and that those who wore the Red Bandanas were outsiders,local thugs etc that joined the rebellion. In no way was anyone wearing a red bandana a leader or an insider.

What specific references in this book are you referring to? Can you quote a section? What specifically are you talking about w/r to HFY and relation to other WC families? Descendants below Tan-Sau Ng?

Lee Man was the head of what specifically?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"No one with documented fighting experience was turned down." (Knife/Dale)


***BUT they could be put on the shelf at the discretion of Rorion Gracie...

Here's another TWC story about this that I know of first hand...back around 1994-95....William Cheung was here in NYC for a seminar and staying at Jimmy Ng's condo in lower Manhattan...and I came over for a private lesson...about half way through the phone rings and it's Anthony Arnett calling from Florida.

(Anthony is one of the top TWC guys and even at that time already had a room full of trophies from various full contact fighting tournaments he had won)...he called to tell William Cheung that Rorian Gracie only offered him an opportunity to be an alternate in an upcoming UFC - but that Anthony would have to pay an unrefundable $500.00 fee - but with no guarantee that he would ever fight.

So he turned it down.

[anerlich]

Anerlich-
I trained at the Gracie academy for many years. Back in the original days, they actually had to go searching for competent contestants. They even put adds in martial arts publications to get fighters interested in competing. No one with documented fighting experience was turned down.

I dunno. Marty, as I said, was more involved with it than I (I only read about it on usenet). It might all have happened between Joe Grepo ( rep for Rick's then instructor William Cheung in the US, though ti might have been someone else) and Art Davie and got knocked on the head somewhere else along the line between the middlemen. Just what I heard.

Rick, indeed, never talks about having "tried to enter the UFC but got turned down". He did talk about it maybe happening, and if it did, he'd start intensive training for it, but it never did.

He has a good kickboxing record, but only got his BJJ blue belt in 2000 or thereabouts. I have no doubt if he entered an early UFC and the fight went to ground he would have had to tap out pretty quick.

Just one more of those things that never got out of the blocks, like the Gracie/Boztepe and Gracie/Urquidez matches, I guess, albeit with less publicity.

[Manny]

Mr.Parlati :o
are you suggesting that the Gracies are afraid to fight one of your so-called wing chun fighters?:confused:
From what i have seen every time a wing chunner got to UFC he was pummelled pretty quickly.
Why don't you just walk into one of their gym's and challenge, i am sure they would enjoy the workout, even if it did last about 2 minutes, if that.:eek:

Philip

[Ultimatewingchun]

What I'm suggesting is that Anthony was only offered what I said he was offered. You draw your own conclusions from that.

[Knifefighter]

What I'm suggesting is that Anthony was only offered what I said he was offered. You draw your own conclusions from that.
I guess anything is possible. However, I remember them having trouble coming up with fighters for the early UFC's. I don't recall any kind of fee being involved.

I do know that there are a ton of people out there today who claim either they or someone they know was excluded from competing, ostensibly on the grounds that the Gracies were afraid that Royce might be beaten.

As far as decent fighters not being let into the early UFC's , here is a partial list of the people that were "allowed" into the first four UFC's that could have (or did) end up fighting 170 lb. Royce:

- Ken Shamrock (220 lbs.) Pancrase Hybrid Wrestling Champion
- Teila Tuli a 415 lb. professional sumo wrestler.
- Kevin Rosier 6'4" 265 lb Kickboxer
- Jason DeLucia 190 lb. Kung Fu fighter
- Art Jimmerson boxer who competed at super middleweight, light heavyweight, cruiserweight and heavyweight and had a professional boxing record of 29-5.
- Orlando Weit Muay Thai champ.
- Eldo Dias Xavier 5’11" 180 lbs. Capoera fighter
- Guy Metzger 6' 200 lb kickboxing champ.
- Jason Fairn kung fu fighter.
- Remco Pardoel 6'2" 250 lb European jujutsu/judo champ.
- Kimo Leopoldo 260lb. 6 ft 3 in 235 lb boxer/grappler who lost to Royce, but resulted in Royce having to drop out of the tourney.
- Ron van Clief 10th Degree Red Belt and founder of the Chinese Goju System
- Keith Hackney 200 lb. Kempo Karate black belt.
- Emmanuel Yarborough 6'8" 600 lb sumo wrestler
- Christophe Leninger Olympic Judo Silver Medalist.
- Joe Charles 6'1" 260 lb. Judo black belt.
- Zane Frazier 6'6" 230 lb Karate champion
- Pat Smith 225 lb kickboxing champ
- Steve Jennum 215 lb. ninjitsu fighter/police officer.
- Gerard Gordeau world Savate champion.
- David Levicki 6'5" 290 lb Kung Fu fighter.
- Dan Severn 6'2" 250 lb. All American wrestler with 95 national and internation wrestling titles.

Speaking of drawing your own conclusions...

[Ultimatewingchun]

My conclusion is that AT THAT TIME Royce had a lot of answers to fighting that the above-mentioned people didn't have much of a clue about.

Bravo for Royce, the Gracies...and the system that their father and uncle honed to a high level after learning jiu jitsu from Maeda back in the 1920's.

[Edmund]

- Christophe Leninger Olympic Judo Silver Medalist.

Which Olympics was that?

[sihing]

There's no doubt that Royce brought forth a major paradigm shift in thinking when related to competition fighting. After watching him, what I respected the most is the fact that in most cases he was outweighed and could not match his opponents power base, but he still won, based mostly on the high level skills that he had in his GGJ system. Yes, what he was doing caught everyone off guard, but that is the key to fighting IMO, you don't want to do things the other guys is familiar with to defeat him. Surprise works 100 times out of 100. That is why the street is such a different animal, every fight you have there has that element that is not seen in fighting competitions, the unknown element or lack of prior knowledge of your opponents tactics, strengths/weaknesses, abilities or lack thereof. This unknown element makes up for allot of other things that may never arise in the competition realm.



James

[Knifefighter]

There's no doubt that Royce brought forth a major paradigm shift in thinking when related to competition fighting.
And in a lot of other realms.


This unknown element makes up for allot of other things that may never arise in the competition realm.
Yeah... just imagine the competition fighter that also trains to do unconventional street stuff!!!!

[Knifefighter]

Which Olympics was that?
My bad.

I got him mixed up with Ben Spijkers, the judo bronze medalist, who fought Renzo. I believe Leninger won the U.S. judo nationals twice, and medaled in the Judo worlds, but was only an alternate at the Olympics.

[Matrix]

Surprise works 100 times out of 100.

If that's the case, then I'll be working on my "surprise" skills. :D

[sihing]

And in a lot of other realms.


Yeah... just imagine the competition fighter that also trains to do unconventional street stuff!!!!

Agreed!. If a competition fighter does train for the street as well, he would be much more formibable as a all around fighter IMO. Dale, is this common practice among the present day MMA fighters, to train for the street as well as the ring simultaneously?

Royce taught us allot of things, one thing is that the ground can be useful for us rather than something to fear. But I would strongly recommend that one not fight there for long while engaged in a street confrontation, as the varying unidentifiable threats (not found in comps) can make that place your final resting place real fast. Of course, this does not mean comp fighters can't fight on the street, it is just a different game that's all, with different factors leading to success. Not all street fighters can compete, not all comp fighters can fight on the street, as with any endeavour it is up to the individual and what they want out of it that matters most in the end. Some will fight at the drop of a hat, for others it takes more to make them aggressive, each situation is unique in circumstance and the individuals (regarding their personalities/skills/attitudes/etc..) involved.

James

[sihing]

If that's the case, then I'll be working on my "surprise" skills. :D

Hey Bill,

Yes, the best surprise is when you bring a gun to a knife fight. Works for me..:D

Actually surprise is not a skill, it just is what it is, otherwise referred to as the "unknown". The unknown is very scary for some, and should be. Just imagine back when Bruce Lee was alive, in the early 60's wearing a suit and glasses. Most unfamiliar with who he was and what his skills where, would vastly underestimate his ability to fight. This is an extreme advantage for Bruce (not that he needed it anyways..), because mentally the other guy would be overconfident and not prepared for such a effective response from Bruce in most cases. They say, after the basics are absorbed, success in any athletic endeavour is 90% mental 10% physical. Fighting is not much different IMO.

James

[Knifefighter]

is this common practice among the present day MMA fighters, to train for the street as well as the ring simultaneously?
I don't know if I would call it common, but there definitely is a pretty sizeable sub-set out there who train this way.


Royce taught us allot of things, one thing is that the ground can be useful for us rather than something to fear. But I would strongly recommend that one not fight there for long while engaged in a street confrontation, as the varying unidentifiable threats (not found in comps) can make that place your final resting place real fast.
As far as fighting on the ground being good or bad, that is 100% situation dependent. In some situations, it is easily your best choice (assuming you know what you are doing there). In others, it is your worst choice. And in still others you don't have a choice in the first place.

[Matrix]

Actually surprise is not a skill, it just is what it is, otherwise referred to as the "unknown". Hey James,
It was a joke.......
I guess I better cancel my gig at Yuk Yuk's :p


The unknown is very scary for some, and should be. The unknown can be scary, but it really shouldn't be. It's a part of life. If there were no surprises in life it would be pretty boring. N'est pas?
I agree that being prepared mentally is a good way to avoid being caught.

[sihing]

I don't know if I would call it common, but there definitely is a pretty sizeable sub-set out there who train this way.


As far as fighting on the ground being good or bad, that is 100% situation dependent. In some situations, it is easily your best choice (assuming you know what you are doing there). In others, it is your worst choice. And in still others you don't have a choice in the first place.


Agreed again, sometimes there is no choice, so those with experience there will definetly have greater chance for success.


I imagine that there are MMA players that don't compete and use the venue to help them prepare for the street when needed. Personal motivations vary for each of us in the MA.

James

[sihing]

Hey James,
It was a joke.......
I guess I better cancel my gig at Yuk Yuk's :p

The unknown can be scary, but it really shouldn't be. It's a part of life. If there were no surprises in life it would be pretty boring. N'est pas?
I agree that being prepared mentally is a good way to avoid being caught.


Hi Bill,

Acutally I think you have a great sense of humour..;)

Regarding fights and violent confrontations, the unknown factor IMO is scary. In life it can make things more interesting and I agree that if surprises were not a part of the journey it would be a boring one at that.

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing, sorry for the hijack guys..:D

J

[Ultimatewingchun]

That's the type of hijacking that I, for one, don't mind one bit...:)

(This whole thread was going nowhere but down - right from the beginning). :rolleyes:

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

As to "surprises"....one of the most profound yet simple martial arts "maxims", if you will...is something William Cheung used to say upon occasion back in the day:

"If You Haven't Seen It Before - It's Probably Going To Hit You."

(Now apply this to the Royce Gracie phenomenon back in the 90's and you see this "principle" working very clearly...as well as Ali's boxing style in the 60's-70's...Bruce Lee's lightening footwork/kicking/trapping/5 angles of attack skills, etc.)

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

As for this statement:

"I imagine that there are MMA players that don't compete and use the venue to help them prepare for the street when needed. Personal motivations vary for each of us in the MA." (James)


***THAT'S exactly the approach to martial arts I, personally, decided to take some time ago. Although I've entered some students in comps on a few occasions (and they did well)...I have always trained myself and them for street-effectiveness first and foremost. Like was said - it's all about one's individual motivations.

[sihing]

That's the type of hijacking that I, for one, don't mind one bit...:)

(This whole thread was going nowhere but down - right from the beginning). :rolleyes:

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

As to "surprises"....one of the most profound yet simple martial arts "maxims", if you will...is something William Cheung used to say upon occasion back in the day:

"If You Haven't Seen It Before - It's Probably Going To Hit You."

(Now apply this to the Royce Gracie phenomenon back in the 90's and you see this "principle" working very clearly...as well as Ali's boxing style in the 60's-70's...Bruce Lee's lightening footwork/kicking/trapping/5 angles of attack skills, etc.)

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

As for this statement:

"I imagine that there are MMA players that don't compete and use the venue to help them prepare for the street when needed. Personal motivations vary for each of us in the MA." (James)


***THAT'S exactly the approach to martial arts I, personally, decided to take some time ago. Although I've entered some students in comps on a few occasions (and they did well)...I have always trained myself and them for street-effectiveness first and foremost. Like was said - it's all about one's individual motivations.

Back a few years ago I would have critized you for a statement like that. Today I've learned that Martial Arts is a very individual thing. Wing Chun IMO is not a fighting style, but rather a training system, meant to develop certain attributes that can only HELP you achieve success in a physical confrontation. Nothing or no one, except for yourself, can guarantee 100% success in combat. All WC can do, like any MA, is help increase your chances. For me, I've never worried about street confrontations, simply for that fact that I choose to use other methods to deal with it, which first and foremost is AVOIDANCE. If one happens then I deal with it as it comes, by first using my wits, rather than my fists....

James

[Matrix]

Regarding fights and violent confrontations, the unknown factor IMO is scary. In life it can make things more interesting and I agree that if surprises were not a part of the journey it would be a boring one at that. Well, I guess that's another dimension for training, beyond the physical attributes and skills. We talk about being centered and balanced in our physical model. I think those qualities are also equally important in our emotions. To remain calm and stay within ourselves.

Let's face it, all we can control in a given situation is ourselves. If we are overcome by fear or emotion we have lost our center as well. The emotions actually restrict our physical ability. We have given the opponent control, and by extension, lessen our control before the first move has been made. I know this is easier said then done, but it's something to keep in mind.

[Matrix]

Actually surprise is not a skill, it just is what it is, otherwise referred to as the "unknown".
When I saw your comment that "Surprise works 100 times out of 100." I thought that if something is 100% successful, we should use it. ;)

Your response that "surprise is not a skill" reminded me of the classic scenes in the Pink Panther movies where Kato would ambush the Inspector to test his ability to react to sneak attacks..... :D

[sihing]

When I saw your comment that "Surprise works 100 times out of 100." I thought that if something is 100% successful, we should use it. ;)

Your response that "surprise is not a skill" reminded me of the classic scenes in the Pink Panther movies where Kato would ambush the Inspector to test his ability to react to sneak attacks..... :D

That's exactly the effect. Surprise works all the time. It's the one that you didn't see that knocks you out, so the one not seen is the surprise. That is not to always mean that the fight is over because you have surprised them with a application of an technique, but when you hit someone or take them down that in itself is success, that can lead to victory.


"Well, I guess that's another dimension for training, beyond the physical attributes and skills." IMO, developing the individual physical skills is the basics only. In fighting, ultimatley IMO you have to master timing, distance control and perception (the ability to read your opponents movements visually). Your body should react appropiately if you can develop these things to a high level. If I see you throwing a haymaker and I have the physical abilities already within me, I can stop hit you easy. No need to block or recover. Bruce is the prime example of this.

gotta run...

James

[Matrix]

IMO, developing the individual physical skills is the basics only. In fighting, ultimatley IMO you have to master timing, distance control and perception (the ability to read your opponents movements visually). Your body should react appropiately if you can develop these things to a high level. If I see you throwing a haymaker and I have the physical abilities already within me, I can stop hit you easy. No need to block or recover.
What I'm trying to say is that emotions can short-circuit your physical skills that have been trained in a non-threatening environment. Shallow breathing, high adrenaline and stress can kill relaxation and rob you of mobility, control and power that you need.

[sihing]

What I'm trying to say is that emotions can short-circuit your physical skills that have been trained in a non-threatening environment. Shallow breathing, high adrenaline and stress can kill relaxation and rob you of mobility, control and power that you need.

That's why the intensity and realism of the training has to always increase. And also putting yourself out there in strange environments, sparring and exposing yourself to different fighters and styles helps.

Always remember that the stress and adrenaline dump is not ONLY effecting you, but your opponent too. To many times we only concern ourselves with what is happening to us, but really it is happening to the other guy as well. So it makes sense to believe that the one with the better training and exposure to combat would come out on top in most cases. Of course nothing is guaranteed in combat, you just have to do the best you can, dealing with it as it comes.

James

[Matrix]

Always remember that the stress and adrenaline dump is not ONLY effecting you, but your opponent too. To many times we only concern ourselves with what is happening to us, but really it is happening to the other guy as well. So it makes sense to believe that the one with the better training and exposure to combat would come out on top in most cases. James,
From my point of view, whether the opponent is stressed emotionally or not is inconscequential. I cannot count on that being the case. Why would I waste my time playing mind games with myself ?
I only concern myself with what is happening to me, because that is all I can control. The opponent will do or not do whatever he decides to do. I want to stay within myself and bring the situation to a rapid conclusion.

[Liddel]

I like the POV on surprise and it brings to mind some things ive tried to prepare me for surprise attacks.

(being smacked in the head when your not looking is popular down the main drag of town where i live)

Ive been shown different ways of training and dealing with the surprise element, from my buddy who is a Personal Protection Officer.
Body guards for the most part when dealing with threats get taken by surprise but thats the crux of the job, being able to deal with surprise H2H attacks.

There are several ways you can train to improve your chances, here's one senario ive done with friends -

Get a partner to attack you with one action from a angle outside your eye line, be it a kick or a punch. Now the key to realism is you are ONLY allowed to retaliate AFTER the action has landed.

Of course your partner has to appreciate this is just training and you dont want to injure yourself so hitting with 100 % isnt advised (my partners are all bigger and stonger) but a forceful stunning power is recommended for realsim and to prepare ones body and mind.

After you feel comfortable with the single action senario, get your partner to give two actions, although you only have to wait for ONE to land before you can act.

once youve got used to the surprise attack senario you can even add sparring after the initial blows doing three min rounds etc - just use your mind...

Does anyone else do specific trainnig drills for surprise attacks ?
If so, how or what do you do ?

[Wayfaring]

Does anyone else do specific trainnig drills for surprise attacks ?
If so, how or what do you do ?

The concept we train is "shadow" vs. "shape". "Shadow" training would involve covering gates and sweeping space based upon NOT being able to see the attack coming. "Shape" would involve targeting what you can see.

[lui1828]

from an earlier post:
First he starts off and bad mouths Moy Yat and Lee Moy Shan both more than once, and very disgracefully at that. Using words like 'greedy', refering to one as a con man, calling them lyers, and getting even more personal: " At that time Lee was embroiled in another business, an affair, a crumbling marriage, and other things"
This is slanderous IMO. An affair? Is there proof?


from me:
I not sure where the slander is. I too was conned by Lee Moy Shan (Douglas lee) into joining his special students association for $1,000.00

Lee had a school on 23 st NYC. I joined the school when Vinny Thomas was studying the second form. I will say that Vinny was a real gentleman at all times.
He never popped you on the nose during chi sau to prove he was the top dog.
At that I Lee has just gotton married to a chinese girl. I'am sure she was still a student at Baruch college, but in any case she was only 20 year old or so.

Later Lee did get a divorce and married a white women. You will have to ask his ex-wife if Lee was cheating during his marriage.

Lee was engaged in other endevors. At that time he was trying to open a food take out place. He had a mobile cart on the street in which he sold egg rolls.

He was also trying to get a acupunture license via self study.

so bascially for my $1,000 Lee taught me the Three Stooges eye poke.

All the other times he was not at the school.

Are there any other Lee special students out there ?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"The Three Stooges eye poke"....

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

My God....you've just made my day.

(Not that I ever had anything against Douglas Lee, mind you...but that was laugh-out-loud funny)...:rolleyes: :D :)

[drleungjohn]

Hi Lui828- I am an old LMS student-Who are you exactly,your real name please maybe I know you-I came to the school right after the move to Chambers street upstairs,so I know pretty much most or all of the oldtimers-

[lui1828]

"The Three Stooges eye poke"....

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

My God....you've just made my day.

(Not that I ever had anything against Douglas Lee, mind you...but that was laugh-out-loud funny)...:rolleyes: :D :)

You know the Three Stooges eye poke too ??? How much did you pay to learn it. ?

Lee had his own special students scam at the same time Moy Yat run his.

Lee told me he had a limit of 10(?) or so openings. I had to act right away else I could not join. How many of Lee's special students are still out there ?

[lui1828]

Hi Dr.

Yes you know me although we never met. we exchanged a lot of w/c and martial arts media

I did w.c and then did judo.
I will send you an email

What is LMS doing these days ?

[drleungjohn]

Cool-I look forward to it-

LMS is living in China now-Vinny Thomas is running the school
Steve Goericke is way out on Long Island, Darryl Jordan is in Florida,Dan Leahy in Vermont,Robert Chu in California,Paul Fields I am not sure,Dave Robinson in Boston last I heard and not sure about Richard Louie