Do all HFY schools teach the same...

[Cimaroon]

Curriculum? I went to visit one and was suprised to learn that they start off the training with sanshou(boxing) skills for weeks before getting to any forms work. Also was disappointed at the McDojo'ness of the place.

[couch]

Also was disappointed at the McDojo'ness of the place.

Could you elaborate on this part? What makes this club a McDojo?

[Cimaroon]

"Join the Shaolin Warrior program and get your black belt in two years"

[duende]

Hello Cimaroon,

I'll try my best to answer your question, although understand that I'm not absolutely familiar with the fine details of how every HFY kwoon is run.

In the HFY Wing Chun Federation, all kwoons follow a strict cirriculum of HFY material that has been approved and directed by HFY HQ.

With that said, schools are allowed to taylor their individual programs outside of the HFY cirriculum to better fit their regional location and student base.

Therefore, some schools do provide an introduction to martial arts program that serves as a pathway for new students to gain some basic martial awareness and athletic ability before they are brought fully into the HFY program.

However to my knowledge, if the student already has a degree of athletic ability, they can test out of these introduction classes and move straight to the HFY program itself.


In regards to your personal experience, you may have found this introduction course to not be what you had in mind. But I will say, that a basis of outside martial knowledge is to your benefit later on in your training for sparring and other skill challenges.

As for the McDojo-ness of the belts etc... I personally don't care for belts, but you'd be surprised at how many students really really want them. So with that in mind our schools are allowed to implement belt rankings within their kwoons as they see fit.

However all regional instructors must follow the ranking and certification process as required by HFY HQ.

Hope that answers your questions.

[Chango]

I have found this approach to be refreshing! I think it really helps the Wing Chun student define what it is that he/she is learning! I think it also allows them to see a contrast in methods! keeping a healthy respect for other arts while allowing the student to see the benefit of his/her training. As for getting your black belt in 2 years I think black belt is a relative term. I have no problem bringing my 2 year students to a level where they can compete at the black belt level! As a matter of fact when ever my student compete if they've been with me more then two years they prefer to sign up for the "black belt" or "advanced" level.

just my 2 cent

[Chango]

I like the idea of using a san shou platform to start the basics it is a great idea. It will be good to start with a realistic (actual contact) free fighting format. Then move to a model that has form etc... I think it will aid in application. To me there is nothing worse then to see a martialart demonstrated against a poor example of a technique.This will make sure that the skill challenges are of better quality! Some would consider that "keeping it real" LOL! :D If someone already has a martialarts back ground and can demonstrate the basics with good quality then they will have no issue testing out of it. ;) It's a win - win for everyone!

[Cimaroon]

Thanks. Not trying to disrespect. Just curious. Also, these particular folks were tryting to get $200 bucks , fast out of me before I even partook in one class. They didnt really talk with me abut my goals or intentions, just plug me into the particular slot pay and pass go.

[duende]

That is strange to hear, and I understand your concern. Typically we offer a free trial class for every potential new student. As for payments, usually it's just the monthly fee, and the cost of a T-shirt and/or sweat pants. Also, a brief but informative over-view of the program and their courses should be given. Thus allowing the potential student to know what exactly it is that they are signing up for.

If you are still interested in finding a Hung Fa Kwoon in your area, simply pm me or Chango, and one of us will be glad to get you sorted.

Best,

Alex

[punchdrunk]

duende and chango those were good straight answers, i have a simple question.
Is there a standard grading system in HFY? Just as a refrence for non-members it would be good to know if there is Black Bel;ts or degrees etc.

[duende]

Hey there Punch,

Like I mentioned earlier there is a standard grading system for instructors etc, but for regular members each school is given some latitude with belt levels and degrees.

By and large however, we all pretty much follow the same system belt system... with Blue representing SLT, Green for CK and so on.

Basically we have three individual form levels and three weapons levels. The form levels (SLT, CK, BG) each are divided into three sections. These sections incorporate two-man drills, conditioning sets, and skill challenges along with solo dummy forms to complement the material presented.

One thing to note, in HFY... progression and advancement is based on skill, not on a specified amount of time. Therefor it is not uncommon for a newer student to sometimes pass an older student if the newer student is able to apply the material being taught first.

Simple as that. However no student advances to the next level/belt/ranking unless they pass the skill challenges imposed on the level material being taught.

This is all discussed in much more detail on HFY108 which is open to the public.

Best,

Alex

[bennyvt]

sounds dodgy. Does that mean black belt is the weapons. In two years you have got to be joking. If you where doing 18 hour days maybe. But do they teach vt in the shan shou. Seems strange to do other stuff if you want vt. And the bit about any one who has done ma should be happy to 'test' it sounds a bit like a 'what are you chicken' thing. Just sounds like he want to learn vt and was going to be saying a lot to do other them he wanted

[punchdrunk]

thanks for the reply Duende, it's good to make some things more public to avoid problems with fakes and imitations. I like variety and wish more was shared.

[duende]

Your most welcome Punch. :) And I also like variety.

bennyvt,

How you came to those conclusions is really odd, but you are incorrect in all your assumptions.

HFY is not for everyone. And if learning WT in a closed environment without any interaction or awareness of other martial arts and their techniques is what you're after, then there are plenty of schools out there that will teach you all the forms and more in two years. HFY is just not one of them.

With that said, it is my strong belief that in order to apply your Wing Chun, you have to have experience testing yourself against non-wc fighters. This is not being dodgy, this is simply the reality of combat.

As for how long it takes to learn something... Like I mentioned earlier, it depends on the individual and how long it takes them personally to grow and experience the different seasons of learning.

If Cimaroon wants to try out a HFY school, my offer of help still stands. The rest is up to him.

[duende]

Your most welcome Punch. :) And I also like variety.

Bennyvt,

How you came to those conclusions is really odd, and you are incorrect in your assumptions.

HFY is not for everyone. And if learning WT in closed environment without any interaction or awareness of other martial arts and their techniques is what you're after, then there are plenty of schools out there that will teach you all the forms and more in two years. HFY is just not one of them.

With that said, it is my strong belief that in order to apply your Wing Chun, you have to have experience testing yourself against non-wc fighters. This is not being dodgy, this is simply the reality of combat.

As for how long it takes to learn something... Like I mentioned earlier, it depends on the individual and how long it takes them personally to grow and experience the different seasons of learning.

If Cimaroon wants to try out a HFY school, my offer of help still stands. The rest is up to him.

[Chango]

I think the "two year Black Belt" thing does not mean you will have a black belt in the Hung Fa Yi system. I think it was meant to express the amount of information that you will be exposed to and able to train.

Like I said almost all of my two year students not only compete at the black belt level in the sporting areana but I've had Black belts from other Martial arts assume that my two year students are sifu's themselves from discussions and exchanges. I think alot of WCK guys have had a simular experience given that WCK is a principle art and can deliver a great amount of understanding to those who work at it!

[bennyvt]

my assumptions, you said that the belts went on the forms ie white for slt etc. The guy said it was a two year black belt deal he this means that they would be doing the weapons after two years them it is dodgy. Teaching people other then vt when that is what they pay for is dodgy especially if they haven't learnt vt to trial this, sounds like a way to make the new guys feel bad and your seniors better as they already know what to do. I think trainin with other styles when you know what you are doing is great. Making people do it before they learn vt is stupid and doesn't help your vt. It sounds like they care more about the money. I understand you are standing up for your system but that school sound like a rip off. That school not your system.

[Chango]

It is clear that you misunderstand what was being said. To assume the worse seems to be bad business! LOL! Teaching someone basic martial arts skills does not make others feel good and others bad! you can test out of the general M.A. part! How does that make someone feel bad LOL!

The black belt being that is being discussed is not a "black belt" in HFY. It is not to teach one person the real stuff and another on other stuff. It is to give a great general martial arts education and then having them specialize. it is as simple as that.

I'm sorry that you have had negative experiences with people in the martial arts business "just for money" But your negative previous experiences and old wounds do not apply here.

Maybe just a misunderstanding on both parts! (I'll take 50% of the blame) LOL!

[duende]

Bennyvt,

a few things you might want to take into consideration...

1. Weapons were originally taught before hand forms. In this day an age, we choose not to teach weapons before hand forms because it makes more sense give the conditions of our times.

2. If/when you become a teacher.. you will understand that there will be students who come through your door who want to learn WC, but have absolutely no athletic ability whatsoever. Meaning they can't even balance on one foot, or move any of their limbs freely... some can't even hold their fingers straight. Hand-eye coordination is a fantasy for them. Really it get's that bad.

SOME, not all, of our schools have chosen to implement these introductions to MA classes with good reason. It is a way to not only broaden a students understanding of MA, but also get their blood flowing a bit quicker.

I however teach at a HFY school where we do not implement these intro courses, and let me tell you what happens...

During SLT drills, that student is often on the sidelines developing basic skills anyways.

So really it's a half dozen one way... and a half dozen the other.

In an ideal world. Of course, WC foundation should be taught first... but sometimes you don't even have any ground to lay your foundation on.

[Cimaroon]

^ LOL! I bet as an instructor you see all sorts. WOW

[bennyvt]

if i went to a running coach and wanted to learn to sprint and he said he would have to teach me to hurdle first them he would be dodgy. If some one came and wanted to learn ma then its all cool. But the guy wanted vt so teach him it. And putting someone with no experience (as if he had by your explanation he would not need to do it) against others that have, is not fair to the new people but makes your students feel good as they can play with there people. i do teach (not at moment due to work) and an also a personal trainer and strength and conditioning coach so i know how to teach. If they have no fitness or ability you take your time and they develop it. Vt teacher you all there things. And i would like to know where it says that the weapons were taught first. Must be the only system to teach the weapons first. I thought the saying goes, you cant use the weapons until you hands are good enough in case you lord your weapon.

[duende]

bennyvt,

I've tried to be helpful here, but frankly I have better things to do than help you with your reading comprehension skills or understanding of history for that matter.

Particularly because you insist on drawing wild unfounded conclusions of your own... not to mention making up things and going off on strange tangents.

Obviously these are based on your own experiences and you need to deal with them as such.

good luck with that, and best of luck with your training

[bennyvt]

You have tried to be helpful. You have tried to justify why your school does what it does. I was writing to the guy that made the thread. I think it sounded dodgy.
Using examples is not going off on wierd tangents. I have said
*You shouldnt be able to get a black belt (I find belts as a money spinner) in two years as the guy said was advertised.
*Why do you have to learn something else in order to learn VT. If your fitness or balance etc isnt good VT will fix these problems.
*Expecting someone to fork out $200 dollars up front sounds crazy. I also give a free class as an intro like one of you said. Which we both agree on.
*If the guy wants to learn about other styles why not teach him VT and he can learn the others on his own, or train with other guys (which I do and have no problem what so ever with) once he actually knows VT.

This has gone from being a person asking for peoples opionons to you justifying why that school did it, to lets make out this guy doesnt know anything so we look better, hence the "IF/when you become a teacher", wow thats not condesending at all.. You and the other guy turned this into a talk about the way your system is run. I was talking about the school that this guy went to. Their are schools that I dont like in the WSLVT system but I dont justify them trying to take peoples money just because they are from the same system.

[Chango]

Some understand and some don't understand some choose not to understand.

* No one said you have to learn other things in order to learn wing chun.

- Nothing wrong with giving someone a general martial arts foundation to build off of. If you don't need it test out out of it. If you don't like it all of this is your choice. (nothing dodgy about that) I'm sure there are methods and things your school does that I might take issue with. can't please everyone.LOL!

* Everything we do we do with purpose and reason. You may call that justification.

-That's fine you have a choice to agree or disagree. Some people like some don't that is one of the reasons we have many schools styles etc...

*belts and sashes have been debated for years.

- I can see a down side and a upside with them. you have pointed out how thier could be a downside. The upside is that when you have more then 20 students you can have some Idea of what they have been exposed to with out constantly asking them. Once again the choice is yours belts no belts.


It all boils down to the fact that you have a choice and a opinion. I can only urge others to come a see first hand. HFY is not for everyone! The problem may be the school the teacher or the person wanting to learn. I just urge people to take the time do the research before investing thier time and resources. Find a school, teacher, system etc.. that fits! I'm just glad people are getting involved with martial arts no matter what art!

[Tom Kagan]

1. Weapons were originally taught before hand forms. In this day an age, we choose not to teach weapons before hand forms because it makes more sense give the conditions of our times.

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

[CFT]

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?Presumably when we stopped carrying weapons around as a matter of course.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

semiautomatic handguns?

[Tom Kagan]

Presumably when we stopped carrying weapons around as a matter of course.

So, like when ... never?


semiautomatic handguns?

Because a cannon, a rifle, a revolver, a peppergun, and/or a lowly single-shot couldn't quite kill you as dead from a distance of 20 feet or more?


Notwithstanding the amusement I find in the first two responses essentially contradicting each other, I am still interested in duende's response.

[CFT]

Outside of niche communities who really does carry around bladed weapons or handguns? Not many people are living subsistence lifestyles, collecting firewood and water, hunting, etc.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Because a cannon, a rifle, a revolver, a peppergun, and/or a lowly single-shot couldn't quite kill you as dead from a distance of 20 feet or more?


Of course they could... but they only had one shot. If I had, say, a sword, and some agility skills, I'd still have the perception (well founded or otherwise) that I could reach my target and hack'n'slash repeatedly before they had a chance to reload.

With a semi, it's a different story. One shot may miss, maybe the second, but from then on it's a game of who homes in first... and the semi's chances get better the closer I get. In a world of semis, a bladed strategy leads quickly to tragedy.

P.S. Maybe instead of "Semiauto" being the endgame of blades, I should say "repeat loader?"

[duende]

When did "this day and age" start and what are "the conditions of our times" which led to such a decision?

Hey Tom,

That quote of mine was in response bennyvt's misassumption and to describe why we do not teach weapons first or after two years.

However, not only is the answer to your question quite obvious, but it's already pretty much been answered at this point. One needs to look no further than our own law enforcement or military personal and see the weapons they carry.

If you'd like to debate the fact that mankind's advancement in technology and military weaponry have been linked since the dawn of our times, then I suggest you start a new thread and do it there.

Best,

Alex

[Tom Kagan]

So, does this mean HFY did or did not start with weapons originally?

Countless other styles start with weapons or introduce them very early in a training curriculum, especially those which are for combat.

[Tom Kagan]

Outside of niche communities who really does carry around bladed weapons or handguns? Not many people are living subsistence lifestyles, collecting firewood and water, hunting, etc.


So those styles which start with weapons are merely doing it for cultural and historic reasons?

[Tom Kagan]

P.S. Maybe instead of "Semiauto" being the endgame of blades, I should say "repeat loader?"

Repeat shot weapons predate the creation of the style.

[anerlich]

Not many people are living subsistence lifestyles, collecting firewood and water, hunting, etc

Yeah, unless you count the several billion in the third world.

[Xiao3 Meng4]

Repeat shot weapons predate the creation of the style.

Really? Interesting.

Were they around in China? Were they widespread at the time of the style's development?

Maybe bladed weapons training took a backburner in certain countries with the advent of mass production... or laws banning their use in public?

[bennyvt]

Hey
I was asking if the two year black belt thing and the describtion given by you guys if that meant a black belt was up to the weapons, thats pretty simple. An assumption would have been," weell you should be able to get a black belt in two years as you cant do the knives that early." I was simply asking a question

[Chango]

I think in the case that we are discussing the term "Black belt" is used to comunicate to the average Joe looking for martial arts that He/She will be exposed to information and training that will allow them to be equivilant to the industry standard of a black belt. (I know this can be very subjective)

I think alot my fellow kung fu guys can relate when they go to a so-called open tournament and the Kwoon ranking is not honored in the same light as other belts such as the "black belts".

I've been accused of entering a black belt into color division when that student had only been training with me only 1 year and six months. Of course she is a very athletic person but the next time I went ahead and entered her as a black belt and she took first even against boys in all of her division (continuous and kick boxing) except forms! (of course)

I want to make clear that we don't judge a rank by competition levels. However this is just a example of how the term "Black belt" is used to comunicate to John Q public. I can understand why some would have a issue with this. But that's fine it's a free country take it or leave it. It's just a matter of personal choice. As long as your are doing martialarts I'm glad to see people keeping the energy going!

No this is not a reference as to when you start weapons training. I think alot of families have many different traditions as to when they start. I know in most cases I have not had anyone just walk in a say "teach me the knives". LOL! I can't say I would teach someone to use sharp weapons on the terms of just walkking in and saying that anyways! LOL!

[bennyvt]

cool man. It was just when he said the shaolin two year black belt it sounded weird. As i said i have no problem with the style just what the guy said sounded bad

[CFT]

Yeah, unless you count the several billion in the third world.Sure, and I bet they're debating whether they should change their martial arts curriculum.

I am sure that the reason why some systems have kept their training as "weapons first" is because there is still a prevalent weapons culture. The majority of posters on this board will be living in societies where there are laws banning the carrying and even ownership of weapons.

[Tom Kagan]

The majority of posters on this board will be living in societies where there are laws banning the carrying and even ownership of weapons.

Stand in a public place. Look at a person in front of you, a person to the left of you, a person to the right of you, and a person in back of you.

One or more of the five of you is armed.





Does the historical HFY progression introduce weapons at the start of the progression or soon after as is not done today?

[Museumtech]

Stand in a public place. Look at a person in front of you, a person to the left of you, a person to the right of you, and a person in back of you.

One or more of the five of you is armed.

In New York maybe. but in my overcrowded train full of city office workers here in Melbourne, I seriously doubt it.

Peter

[duende]

Does the historical HFY progression introduce weapons at the start of the progression or soon after as is not done today?

According to our history, weapons were originally taught first. But this was not uncommon, in fact many other TCMA's (both North and South) taught weapons first.

For more info check out:

http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2510


One important thing to consider in weapons training however, is to be aware that many training weapons today are constructed very poorly.

In recent years, we have had not one, but two MA schools in the bay area get shut down due to accidents that occurred while training with weapons that did not hold up during training. One such case was where a blade separated and flew off from it's handle and injured an observing student on the sidelines.

The injured student then sued both the KF school he attended and the store where the sword was purchased. Shut them both down.

Just an fyi.

[Tom Kagan]

According to our history, weapons were originally taught first. But this was not uncommon, in fact many other TCMA's (both North and South) taught weapons first.

Does this historical aspect predate the galvanization of HFY into a distinct methodology?


One important thing to consider in weapons training however, is to be aware that many training weapons today are constructed very poorly.

It is doubtful a group of peasant farmer/insurgents in a region not known for blacksmith skills or high quality ore had access to quality training weapons, either.

[JPinAZ]

Does this historical aspect predate the galvanization of HFY into a distinct methodology?

Tom, it's obvious you're now just trolling. You even asked your question regarding HFY and weapons a second time withint 24 hours, when your first went unanswered. Wasn't alex's answers good enough?


It is doubtful a group of peasant farmer/insurgents in a region not known for blacksmith skills or high quality ore had access to quality training weapons, either.

Yeah, and the pole is such an ineffective and hard weapon to make....

[Tom Kagan]

Tom, it's obvious you're now just trolling. You even asked your question regarding HFY and weapons a second time withint 24 hours, when your first went unanswered. Wasn't alex's answers good enough?

Having a simple question answered (as he more or less did in his last post) and my asking a follow up question is hardly trolling.




Yeah, and the pole is such an ineffective and hard weapon to make....


Woodworking is not the same skill as blacksmithing and trees aren't the same natural resource as iron.

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.

[Savi]

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.If find your commentary above to have absolutely no merit.

If you think that JP's post is sufficient enough to draw your conclusion, well... more power to you. I, however, find your post to be extremely ridiculous and uneducated. Considering your history of conversations with HFY members, you leave no question in my mind as to how sincere and open you are on HFY topics. What is your agenda here?

[JPinAZ]

Having a simple question answered (as he more or less did in his last post) and my asking a follow up question is hardly trolling.


You mean 2 questions. In case you already forgot:

12-08-2008, 02:47 PM
So, does this mean HFY did or did not start with weapons originally?

Yesterday, 02:28 PM
Does the historical HFY progression introduce weapons at the start of the progression or soon after as is not done today?

Obviously, you really had a point to make, why not just make it and stop playing stupid?


Woodworking is not the same skill as blacksmithing and trees aren't the same natural resource as iron.

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.

Who said anything about woodworking or blacksmithing anyway? You did. Who said anything about what type of weapons anyone used? you did. now you're just arguing with yourself. Pretty silly if you ask me.

And who said anything about what anyone from HFY used? (besides you)
I thought you were talking about "a group of peasant farmer/insurgents in a region " when you brought all this up. Somehow you are now trying to direct this to back to HFY as well.. Now you're moving beyond silly

And are you seriously saying that poor farmers (regardless the MA they use), who can't afford to make quality weapons regardless the time period, shouldn't use the only weapons that are available to them simply because they are outdated? Right... That's like saying people today should all stop carrying such an impractical weapon as pocket knives since they've all been outdated at the inseption of the hand gun. Friggin brilliant.. :rolleyes:
Not sure if you realize, people are still using wood as weapons. The word Easton comes to mind... how silly of them too..

[duende]

Regardless, it is quite an interesting paradox that an art which purportedly has a link to insurgency tactics would specifically choose to use such an impractical weapon as the long pole, which was already outdated for the time of its adoption.


Not true.

Every see people carry buckets of water across their back? What did they use then and still use in some areas to this day?????

A long pole.

Very practical and highly in use as there were no plumbing systems back then which made carrying in fresh water a daily ritual.

In America, we only had just began using indoor plumbing by the 1840's and then only in major cities.

[CFT]

Not true.

Every see people carry buckets of water across their back? What did they use then and still use in some areas to this day?????

A long pole.

Very practical and highly in use as there were no plumbing systems back then which made carrying in fresh water a daily ritual.I don't think those poles are as long as the Wing Chun long pole. It wouldn't make sense from a leverage point of view. We carry things as close to the body as possible to make use of the skeletal structure.

I think the long pole is more likely to come from a punting pole from the Red Junks, but like a lot of things "Wing Chun" it is not easy to prove.

[bennyvt]

i thought the question was ok. I said you shouldn't learn the knives too early. One guy said that they were taught first. So he asked for more information. I think considering the problems with learning them too early (read the article i have linked in the necessity of a teacher thread) i find this strange. People have brought up fma which i have learnt but it all comes down to yet you think the knives or the hands were first and the other came from that. I was thinking he was looking for proof me some kind. But it seems every hfy guy is having a go at him. Im sure he could work it out with duende who seems hotel enough

[Wayfaring]

This whole thread is ridiculous. Someone doesn't like one of the HFY school's marketing programs. So train somewhere you feel has better marketing or no marketing if that's what's important to you.

That all gets sorted out. Then a huge controversy over whether weapons are/are not taught first. HFY oral history indicates weapons were originally taught first. Now they aren't.

Woohoo - great controversy there. Why, or why not? I mean does it really go beyond the fact that GM Garrett Gee is teaching his art from a hands first training curriculum and that most of his schools do too? I mean I'm sure he could teach wing chun from about a dozen different approaches including weapons first. Whatever approach he chooses, he has a unique ability to get across a whole lot in a short period of time.

[Tom Kagan]

If find your commentary above to have absolutely no merit.

If you think that JP's post is sufficient enough to draw your conclusion, well... more power to you. I, however, find your post to be extremely ridiculous and uneducated. Considering your history of conversations with HFY members, you leave no question in my mind as to how sincere and open you are on HFY topics. What is your agenda here?

You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you.


My agenda is to have questions answered on topics I find interesting which can be reasonably discussed on the internet. What's yours?

I think the real problem here is that you don't actually know the answers to these questions but aren't willing to simply admit you don't know. If you and JPinAZ prefer to let your personal gremlins give cause to divert this and try and make this subject about me, I'm cool with that, but it won't change anything within you. Duende is at least open to discussion.


Not true.

Every see people carry buckets of water across their back? What did they use then and still use in some areas to this day?????

Poles used for carrying water are much shorter, gripped in the middle, and might have a notch to help attach a bucket handles at both ends. Regardless, while there may be some instances of people using them as weapons, there isn't much which supports there use as weapon wielded in the same fashion as an 8 1/2 to 14 foot+ single end tapered pole.

Also, what most people don't realize is that water is heavy - 8 1/2 pounds per gallon. Not too many people would practically carry more than one container, usually up on their shoulder or head. And, those who did, typically did not use just a pole but would construct a yoke or even a frame to better distribute the load across the shoulders and back.

But that's neither here nor there.


Did teaching the weapons first or very soon in progression the predate the galvanization of training methodology into a distinct and actual style? Or, was this a later change to a methodology already in practice and considered the style's curriculum?

[Tom Kagan]

Obviously, you really had a point to make, why not just make it and stop playing stupid?

Why is it hard to answer a simple question?


And are you seriously saying that poor farmers (regardless the MA they use), who can't afford to make quality weapons regardless the time period, shouldn't use the only weapons that are available to them simply because they are outdated?

I suppose I'm saying peasants aren't stupid enough to think an 8 1/2 to 14 foot pole is a good choice as a weapon when better alternatives are available - not the least of which is a shorter pole - and that it is an interesting paradox that the ancestors would choose it as an impractical "weapon" to train within the style when the folklore of the style also tries to underscore the practicality of the training.

[Wayfaring]

Did teaching the weapons first or very soon in progression the predate the galvanization of training methodology into a distinct and actual style? Or, was this a later change to a methodology already in practice and considered the style's curriculum?

This seems to be the English language, yet smacks of a severe head injury while attending Oxford University.

Ummm, I'll give the answer a shot. Weapons used to be trained first back in China. Now, hands are trained first.

Now what this has to do with the rise of the English Rennaisance I don't know, Lord Clark.

[JPinAZ]

haha, wayfaring, too funny :) And you bring up some great points!

From my experience, I would also add that HFY isn't so much a 'style' as it is a system of fighting based on concepts and principals. And these concepts go beyond just hand fighting and translate well to weapons. And, I assume most WCK is thought to be generally the same (i am only somewhat familiar with MY/YM besides HFY). So, it is also safe to say that training can start anywhere, weapons or hands - the concepts remain.

In revolutionary times, I would think it should be a no-brainer that starting with weapons would make more sense since they are more effective for killing than bare hands, 'specially when going up against other armed fighters. And I think it's pretty logical to train whatever weapon is most readily available at the time and location - swords if you have'em, poles if it's all you have. I don't understand why this is all becoming so complicated..

In to day's day and age, we have hand guns, which would be the most logical weapon to start with from this perspective. But if you don't have access to one, you make due with what you have, including your hands. Still hasn't changed much. So, you can approach the training from any perspective you choose or that is necessary. If people want to learn the hand stuff, why not teach them that? If they want to learn weapons, that's there too. At this point in time, people have the choice since thier lives don't really depend on it like in the past. Now it's really about preference than necessity.

[Tom Kagan]

This seems to be the English language, yet smacks of a severe head injury while attending Oxford University.

Ummm, I'll give the answer a shot. Weapons used to be trained first back in China. Now, hands are trained first.

Now what this has to do with the rise of the English Rennaisance I don't know, Lord Clark.

lol! Lousy proof reading. (Getting hit in the head is a hazard of our shared hobby.)

I understand the transition. I'm asking if it predates the galvanization of HFY. I.e.: Were weapons taught later right from the 'birth', or was that a later change?

[Savi]

You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you.
This kind of low-class, pathetic comment supports a very weak and nonconvincing story that you are here for productive discourse. Weak words from an old bag. You are looking for something and it's something everyone is tired of. You seriously need to grow up.

I'm not here to answer your question because your question is off topic. It serves as bait for you to make something out of nothing. People have answered the original poster. The thread is done and should be closed.

You're bored and that's obvious. You're blurring the lines between a weapons discussion and HFY history. You have no understanding of the culture or the people you make assumptions about. You can't put the pieces together and you know it. I am here to stop you from trying to turn HFY into a personal focal point for your humor and ego. Ridiculous.

Take Duende's suggestion and start a new thread if you really are sincere. This one is dead, and you keep trying to kick it. Take a hike.

[Tom Kagan]

This kind of low-class, pathetic comment supports a very weak and nonconvincing story that you are here for productive discourse. Weak words from an old bag. You are looking for something and it's something everyone is tired of. You seriously need to grow up.

I'm not here to answer your question because your question is off topic. It serves as bait for you to make something out of nothing. People have answered the original poster. The thread is done and should be closed.

You're bored and that's obvious. You're blurring the lines between a weapons discussion and HFY history. You have no understanding of the culture or the people you make assumptions about. You can't put the pieces together and you know it. I am here to stop you from trying to turn HFY into a personal focal point for your humor and ego. Ridiculous.

Take Duende's suggestion and start a new thread if you really are sincere. This one is dead, and you keep trying to kick it. Take a hike.


What you just responded to was 'bait'. You should learn the difference between it and questions before your blood pressure gets too far out of control. I do however, like the irony of calling what I said "low class" when your responses aren't exactly the high road. Such hypocrisy isn't very becoming of you.

Why is it so hard for you to say you don't know the answer to a simple question?

[Wayfaring]

lol! Lousy proof reading. (Getting hit in the head is a hazard of our shared hobby.)

I understand the transition. I'm asking if it predates the galvanization of HFY. I.e.: Were weapons taught later right from the 'birth', or was that a later change?

Hmmm. Galvanization.

galvanization

noun
1. stimulation with a galvanic current
2. stimulation that arouses a person to lively action; "the unexpected news produced a kind of galvanization of the whole team"
3. either the work of covering with metal by the use of a galvanic current or the coating of iron with zinc to protect it from rusting

I'm guessing you're meaning definition #2 here. And by that, the "stimulation that is arousing HFY to action" that I've seen here lately seems to be some of your questions and questioning methods, Lord Clark.

As to the question on weapons training first, and when it exactly switched to hands, I don't really know. All I think any of us has is stories or oral tradition history. I would speculate that even by the Red Boat time they might have been doing more hands training first even due to logistics. But that would be a guess only. And from what I've seen the system is set up where teaching it from different methods is very available. So it may even have been a teacher's choice type of a deal.

[duende]

I don't think those poles are as long as the Wing Chun long pole. It wouldn't make sense from a leverage point of view. We carry things as close to the body as possible to make use of the skeletal structure.

I think the long pole is more likely to come from a punting pole from the Red Junks, but like a lot of things "Wing Chun" it is not easy to prove.

CFT,

Of course a pole to carry water is shorter. But using it as staff weapon for engagement and trapping is fine.

[Wayfaring]

Why is it so hard for you to say you don't know the answer to a simple question?
Because the innate good nature of mankind is to help one another while trolling the interwebz.

[Tom Kagan]

As to the question on weapons training first, and when it exactly switched to hands, I don't really know. All I think any of us has is stories or oral tradition history. I would speculate that even by the Red Boat time they might have been doing more hands training first even due to logistics. But that would be a guess only.

I am curious what 'logistics' you would be speculating about which would cause a switch when they still were talking insurgency.

... well, other than the obvious "Kam, you fool! why did the weapons cache float away/get stolen/trade it for magic beans?"

[Wayfaring]

I am curious what 'logistics' you would be speculating about which would cause a switch when they still were talking insurgency.
You may be right. I was thinking as opera troupes they might not have had a whole lot of forged weapons. But they did have the boat poles. And as a secret society that seems to have been insurgency bound, weapons might have been prominent.

Anyway, this is all just a bunch of speculation. And I am not the history buff in the crowd here either.

[LSWCTN1]

what is the big deal with Hung Fa Yi - everybody wants to knock it and i dont understand why!

lets presume for a moment that Garrett Gee lied:eek: about the lineage and history, for marketing purposes or whatever. he wouldnt be the first, or the highet profile person to do it now would he?

are his students happy doing what they do? of course they are - they would leave otherwise

it seems to me that people look at his success and envy that - he probably makes a lot of money through his organisation. case in point: Lee Chiang Po who sometimes posts on here - he studies a form of wing chun that nobody has heard of the lineage before, but they never hammer him about his approach or history because he doesnt earn a bucketload of money from it!

surely it doesnt matter about lineage too much - can your teacher make you become a good practitioner? if not, what are you doing with him? if he can then why are you here using your personal bitterness to try to discredit something you know nothing (or very little) about

my instructor said to me last night that students and teachers are like buckets of water: some are crysal clear with nice clean water, some are a little bit soiled and some are just outright mud. why try to involve yourself with the mud and upset the teacher/embarrass him infront of his students/prove his approach (or ethics) to be wrong? all that will happen will be the mud will try to join your crystal clear bucket and soil it. people of the same type will stick together so a teacher with a bad attitude will, more often than not, attract a student with a bad attitude and so on and so forth

so unless you need clean water in your muddy bucket leave the water alone!

[duende]

For those who are sincerely interested....

The question has already been answered. Weapons were taught first originally. As to what "birthed" what... means ichicken or the egg in this case... we can only speculate.

However, we do know that knowledge of weapons most definitely took part into the creation of HFY as a system. It was put together my the Ming Military and the Saolin Monks. How could it not. But again this is not unique to HFYWCKF. I'm sure across the board of MA's you can find instances of this.

Every HFY student who has reached the 3rd level of SLT and learned Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin knows that this footwork/facing/engagement hand drill is based on the pole and spear technology.

Same with Kiu Sau. It's entire engagement strategy is an echo of the pole form.

The whole notion of Heaven Human Earth facing is based on targeting of weapons and body alignment.


For those who are interested in nonsense


You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you.


I don't think Savi will be giving you his address anytime soon. Especially considering your concern for his "needs". ;)



My agenda is to have questions answered on topics I find interesting which can be reasonably discussed on the internet. What's yours?


If your agenda is to have questions answered on topic... then start a new thread. However I for one am pretty over it.




I think the real problem here is that you don't actually know the answers to these questions but aren't willing to simply admit you don't know. If you and JPinAZ prefer to let your personal gremlins give cause to divert this and try and make this subject about me, I'm cool with that, but it won't change anything within you. Duende is at least open to discussion.


Savi is right, if you were truly interested you would have read the link I provided.

He also completed the MY system and is a HFY instructor, so not only does he know the answers to your question but much more.

We all are open to discussion here. But only when it's from a position of mutual respect and comaradery.

Your questions should be directed at all of us who practice WC. Not just HFY. And therefore deserve their own thread.

It amazes me how people here feel like it's there right to demand answers to any questions they like, and then get upset when they are ignored.

[anerlich]

what is the big deal with Hung Fa Yi - everybody wants to knock it and i dont understand why!

There's a lot of history on the list from a few years back. A conflagration of flame wars.

If you read the "Mastering Kung Fu" book, and what it has to say about other versions of WC and other WC historians, that may give some clues as to why some remain rather antagonistic.

[JPinAZ]

Not that I see the same things you are talking about in MKF, but how long ago did that come out, 2003? And really, is being antagonistic going to change anything? Maybe it's time people get over thier little issues and let it go.

[Knifefighter]

And these concepts go beyond just hand fighting and translate well to weapons. And, I assume most WCK is thought to be generally the same (i am only somewhat familiar with MY/YM besides HFY). So, it is also safe to say that training can start anywhere, weapons or hands - the concepts remain.

Fighting with empty hands compared to fighting with weapons is completely different.

As far as which should be taught first, the thing you are most likely to use is what should be taught first and foremost. That's why the military focuses mostly on using firearms and comparatively very little on empty hand training.

[Knifefighter]

- Nothing wrong with giving someone a general martial arts foundation to build off of.

Wouldn't each instructor need to have been trained in almost all forms of MA to be able to teach a general MA course? What, exactly, is taught in these general courses?

[golgo]

Wouldn't each instructor need to have been trained in almost all forms of MA to be able to teach a general MA course? What, exactly, is taught in these general courses?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily think so. In my classes, we are often asked to throw certain types of basic punches/kicks for demonstration & defense purposes - throw an upper-cut, hook, 1-2 jab combination, etc. Sometimes our Sifu gets a bit frustrated when us beginners don't know how to throw these basic punches in a realistic way. Some basic "MA" training may be good idea so that when we are asked to take turns doing a side kick, you know how to do it at a basic level. I feel like a moron anytime I am asked to do almost any type of kick. At this point, I am not really being taught how to kick, but rather how to defend against one, so I am not that worried about it. I would hope that the person kicking me knew what he was doing, so it would more closely resemble what I would encounter in real life or in a competition.

At the same time, I would think these types of basic skills could be taught in a relatively short amount of time.

[Wayfaring]

Fighting with empty hands compared to fighting with weapons is completely different.

As far as which should be taught first, the thing you are most likely to use is what should be taught first and foremost. That's why the military focuses mostly on using firearms and comparatively very little on empty hand training.

So you're agreeing with the current direction of teaching hands first. Why, thank you. That's very kind. It's so rare to get supporting sentiments on forums like this.

[JPinAZ]

Fighting with empty hands compared to fighting with weapons is completely different.

no kidding.. But that still doesn't mean the concepts and principals can't still be aplied, which is what I was talking about..


As far as which should be taught first, the thing you are most likely to use is what should be taught first and foremost. That's why the military focuses mostly on using firearms and comparatively very little on empty hand training.

makes perfect sense, glad we agree. unless you had another point you were making?

[Tom Kagan]

The question has already been answered. Weapons were taught first originally. As to what "birthed" what... means ichicken or the egg in this case... we can only speculate.

This brings me right back to my first post. As knifefighter mentioned, the military concentrates on weapons because that's what is used first. It is, if you will, a "signature" of a military combative program. By inference, the converse is also true - putting weapons last can be looked at as is a signature of a civilian martial program - something used in a time of relative peace.

A quick glance of the Chinese historical timeline from the time where insurgency wished to overthrow the Qing doesn't have much significant events up until Mao. This is why I asked if you could point to the particular events which may have influenced such a drastic change to the HFY training methodology.

If you don't know, that's fine. A little speculation on your part can also be interesting.



I don't think Savi will be giving you his address anytime soon. Especially considering your concern for his "needs".

It's certainly his prerogative to not want to receive 20 dollars.


It amazes me how people here feel like it's there right to demand answers to any questions they like, and then get upset when they are ignored.

This is a HFY thread with questions regarding the variation of teaching which mentioned historical changes. I asked a question regarding it. I haven't been ignored. You provided information. I did read the information in the link you provided. It did not answer my question clearly. I asked a follow up question and you attempted to attempted to clarify.

You speak of respect, that's cool. As I pointed out already before, you seem to be responding with respect to the questions. Others - Savi, JPinAZ - have not. I find your comment I quoted above interesting: the ones who appear to be upset in this thread are not me. Perhaps they are the ones with questions of me they feel I have been ignoring?

[hhe]

"You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you." from Tom Kagen.

Great example of respect!


"A quick glance of the Chinese historical timeline from the time where insurgency wished to overthrow the Qing doesn't have much significant events up until Mao." from Tom K.

Which first grade Chinese history book did you read?

[duende]

This brings me right back to my first post. As knifefighter mentioned, the military concentrates on weapons because that's what is used first. It is, if you will, a "signature" of a military combative program. By inference, the converse is also true - putting weapons last can be looked at as is a signature of a civilian martial program - something used in a time of relative peace.

A quick glance of the Chinese historical timeline from the time where insurgency wished to overthrow the Qing doesn't have much significant events up until Mao. This is why I asked if you could point to the particular events which may have influenced such a drastic change to the HFY training methodology.

If you don't know, that's fine. A little speculation on your part can also be interesting.


Obviously as I wasn't there so long ago, it is hard to say.

What I do know is that we have abbreviated versions of our forms that could be used to teach weapons or hand training in a short period of time. From my understanding, the teachers of these forms would however have been educated in the full SLT, CK, BG etc...

This gives some more insight but still does not offer any definitive answer.




It's certainly his prerogative to not want to receive 20 dollars.



This is a HFY thread with questions regarding the variation of teaching which mentioned historical changes. I asked a question regarding it. I haven't been ignored. You provided information. I did read the information in the link you provided. It did not answer my question clearly. I asked a follow up question and you attempted to attempted to clarify.

You speak of respect, that's cool. As I pointed out already before, you seem to be responding with respect to the questions. Others - Savi, JPinAZ - have not. I find your comment I quoted above interesting: the ones who appear to be upset in this thread are not me. Perhaps they are the ones with questions of me they feel I have been ignoring?

Come on Tom... you were having a go and you know it. Yeah, it turned into a real conversation, but you can't blame my bro's for giving you a bit of your own medicine.

[Tom Kagan]

Great example of respect!

You know nothing about me. I don't reply to people if I don't respect them. People I don't respect wouldn't get 20 dollars if I offered it. Savi came straight out in his first post to me with ad-hominem attacks. While my reply was crass, it still holds. Obviously, something's bothering him.


Which first grade Chinese history book did you read?

That's a rather amusing hypocritical attempt to belittle, given your previous comment.

As I said before, weapons training no longer at the forefront of a curriculum is a signature of a civilian martial program in peacetime. While there are plenty of events which happened during the time when insurgents were attempting to overthrow the Qing, at a glance, there isn't anything which appears significant enough which could logically lead someone to believe revolutionaries would abandon their upfront need for weapons training at the forefront.

These are the paradoxes of the style I find interesting. Hence, my questions.



Obviously as I wasn't there so long ago, it is hard to say.

What I do know is that we have abbreviated versions of our forms that could be used to teach weapons or hand training in a short period of time. From my understanding, the teachers of these forms would however have been educated in the full SLT, CK, BG etc...

This gives some more insight but still does not offer any definitive answer.

Are the abbreviated forms still actually used to teach weapons early? If not, and the cause as to why such a drastic change in methodology cannot be pointed to, unfortunately it doesn't offer insight because I already understand these types of hypotheticals. Oh well, thanks for trying.




Come on Tom... you were having a go and you know it. Yeah, it turned into a real conversation, but you can't blame my bro's for giving you a bit of your own medicine.

It started out as a real conversation. Your replies treated it as such. Savi and JPinAZ came in here and decided to make this about me. I shut that down.

I also don't blame them for anything. To me, it would seem they have bug up their @ss over some perceived slight of which I am unaware and which they choose not to address... Savi a lot more so than JPinAZ.

[JPinAZ]

Tom, you were baiting and stirring things up a little, which I tend to see you do more often than not when joining 'HFY' threads. I was just calling you on it. It is what it is. Batting your eyes now and trying to act innocent isn't helping.. ;)
But I did add to the conversation as well - it wasn't such a personal attack on you as you try to make it out to be. Get over it.

[Savi]

Tom,
The only way you can stop any of us from pointing the finger at you is by keeping the discussion technical without your ever desire to spin your sh!t regarding aspects of HFY. If you can control yourself that much, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Until then, I'm going to call your BS every time.

Your "question" is not specific to HFY, but Wing Chun in general because all Wing Chun share the same weapons. Saying that HFY chose to use "outdated" weapons is very subjective, misleading, and doesn't even address the fact that all Wing Chun uses the pole and the swords too. If you were trying to corner HFYWCK with your belittling statement, you were in fact doing it to all Wing Chun including your own. That being the case, you were really saying that all Wing Chun uses outdated weapons.

I'd have to say with a comment like that, you do not have a deep enough understanding of the weaponry behind Wing Chun. You do not have an understanding of the relationship behind the hand to hand science and the weapons. You do not have a deep enough understanding of the culture and times of the development of HFY to make such an obscure statement about it.

You think you can stop someone from pointing out something coming from you they may call "questionable" or "unreasonable"? Don't think so. How you react determines how convincing your story may be.

Savi

[First Blood]

Having looked at all the previous post i am amazed at how much hostility HFY gets though i am at a loss to why ?

Pretty much all other WC lineages boast superiority to some degree, i guess that has been the WC way for centuries, there will always be polictics.

I just dont know why all the anti HFY dont just turn up for a lesson or two.......it would be the obvious solution unless the ones in question lead such a sheltered life that all those petty exchanges actually gives them a sense of battle

Anyway just a bit of rambling and nothing to do with the subject matter so i will zip it now

Ed

[Savi]

what is the big deal with Hung Fa Yi - everybody wants to knock it and i dont understand why!

lets presume for a moment that Garrett Gee lied:eek: about the lineage and history, for marketing purposes or whatever. he wouldnt be the first, or the highet profile person to do it now would he?

are his students happy doing what they do? of course they are - they would leave otherwise

it seems to me that people look at his success and envy that - he probably makes a lot of money through his organisation. case in point: Lee Chiang Po who sometimes posts on here - he studies a form of wing chun that nobody has heard of the lineage before, but they never hammer him about his approach or history because he doesnt earn a bucketload of money from it!

surely it doesnt matter about lineage too much - can your teacher make you become a good practitioner? if not, what are you doing with him? if he can then why are you here using your personal bitterness to try to discredit something you know nothing (or very little) about

my instructor said to me last night that students and teachers are like buckets of water: some are crysal clear with nice clean water, some are a little bit soiled and some are just outright mud. why try to involve yourself with the mud and upset the teacher/embarrass him infront of his students/prove his approach (or ethics) to be wrong? all that will happen will be the mud will try to join your crystal clear bucket and soil it. people of the same type will stick together so a teacher with a bad attitude will, more often than not, attract a student with a bad attitude and so on and so forth

so unless you need clean water in your muddy bucket leave the water alone!I enjoy the analogy of clear and muddy water. Definitely good advice, presuming I understand it correctly.

Regarding money, I'd like to share two instances with you. One is that several years ago a man offered $50,000 to record and document the entire HFY system and was turned down. This was due to our Grandmaster's beliefs that the way to preserve the lineage of HFY was not through monetary gain or documentation of the art, but through real die hard training and only the most serious of commitments for the sake of its preservation.

In another instance much further back over 20+ students were turned away who wanted to learn HFY. At the time our Grandmaster was not teaching Wing Chun publicly, only his family kung fu. I can tell you that he is the last person you would expect to be driven by $. There are also several threads over on HFY108 (in the histories, cultures, and philosophies forums) that attest to the integrity of GM Gee. I encourage you to check them out.

I hope these two examples give you a different perspective in pondering such things.

Regards,
Savi.

[duende]

You could try - but you wouldn't make it.

Because you HFY guys are the champions at this...(ie.- gaining other people's hostility).

Almost every single one of you who post here act like you've been brainwashed by some cult - and it is particularly annoying to many, many people.

Thread after thread after thread after thread.

No, you guys are the champs.

Jesus Victor...

not get enough attention lately or what??

You too can be a champ too someday. :rolleyes:

Speaking of cults.... you and these "many, many people" you speak of need to get out more often. :p

Or maybe the whole world is brainwashed because they don't agree with you. :eek:

Enough with the silliness.

If you want to have a real conversation, you know how to get ahold of me.

[duende]

Victor,

If so many people are tired of the flame wars, then why decide to hop on this forum and add to the finger pointing blame game? If you are so annoyed by it, and in the same post do what you are "supposedly" annoyed by then that makes you an hypocrite.

Flame Wars cut both ways. Apparently we are ALL full of sh!t, and you seem to not want to admit your participation.

Hey Savi,

The problem here is that some people have mistaken the strong desire by our core member's to keep our HFY system pure and unchanged with a loss of individuality.

Maybe they just don't understand us because we don't have multiple versions of HFY like YM WC does.... with their different of interpretations, long-standing disagreements, and conflicts.

Or better yet, have versions within versions like TWC, and David Cheung's Serbian TWC, and Jame's former canadian TWC, and Anerlich's Australian Hung Suen version.


The truth is, we have only been public for a relatively short period of time. Who knows what the future will hold.

What I do know is that every single person who has every been to our HFY HQ Kwoon in SF has been treated kindly with respect and dignity. And that we our doing our best to ensure proper system ciriculums for our branch schools that come directly from GM Gee, so that we can keep our system intact.

[Ned]

I would say there would be something wrong if there was no insecutities and hostilities againist something that challenges an already established idea.
...
Ever since HFY, has come out to the public, many schools have been establish
around the world and just recently in China. Get this right, its not HFY going to China to learn Wing Chun but its HFY going to China to teach Wing Chun. Time is a good indicator of truth.

To the orginal question about HFY schools, what regional school are you talking about because GM Gee has taught over 30 years in the US to many generation of students? Dude, speak up, who are you? The HFY association has an establish level one program where you will learn Siu Nihm Tau and an exclusive long range kiu sau curriculum.

[Ned]

Hey Tom,
Take a hike to San Jose! or atleast get your pending message here..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dzac5jqIF1I

[bennyvt]

When you said people were taught the weapon forms buy people that had learnt the empty hand forms. I would take this as the people needed to know then hands before they could teach the weapons which I feel means that the people learnt an abridged version in order to advance the skills they already knew. As most people that were insurgents had some type of previous training. Would this mean that the people teaching learnt the hand forms before the weapons but just taught the others quickly to "enhance" the skills they had in the short period of time needed.

As far as the politics. I was asking a specific question about one school. One school is not a style. I didnt agree with the way they did things and the original poster asked for opions of if it sounded weird. This has turned into a history lesson which I have found quite interesting. As Once reading the book "Complete wing chun" by Robert Chu and others, about the history and found it very interesting and some of the smaller lines had some better ideas of the history. I always found the Ng Miu story hard to believe, how many styles can one girl make. And once got people really upset when speculating the Yim Wing Chun could have been a guy dressed up as a women, (this I read was a comon way to travel as males that could defend them selves got their heads cut off, this still happen in last century. I know Gwok Fu (Yip Mans first student) was held at gun point by the army and got hog tied and had his legs broken by their rifles, f&*king cowards.) I was interested if you guys had a different version. It just seemed that people came from everywhere to defend the style when I was purely talking about a school that someone asked if it was cool.

[LSWCTN1]

I enjoy the analogy of clear and muddy water. Definitely good advice, presuming I understand it correctly.

Regarding money, I'd like to share two instances with you. One is that several years ago a man offered $50,000 to record and document the entire HFY system and was turned down. This was due to our Grandmaster's beliefs that the way to preserve the lineage of HFY was not through monetary gain or documentation of the art, but through real die hard training and only the most serious of commitments for the sake of its preservation.

In another instance much further back over 20+ students were turned away who wanted to learn HFY. At the time our Grandmaster was not teaching Wing Chun publicly, only his family kung fu. I can tell you that he is the last person you would expect to be driven by $. There are also several threads over on HFY108 (in the histories, cultures, and philosophies forums) that attest to the integrity of GM Gee. I encourage you to check them out.

I hope these two examples give you a different perspective in pondering such things.

Regards,
Savi.


hi Savi

i have no issues with his integrity - i know too little about it to pass judgement (and please can no one use the line 'because its not there' because that isnt what i mean)

when i mentioned money, i mentioned it because he is successful and has quite a number of schools, so obviously does do well from it.

thats not a criticism - it was a point that i wanted to make in regards to other people's jelously. Garrett Gee studies a rare, family, lineage and makes money so people want to knock him. Lee Chiang Po studies a rare, family, lineage and makes no money from it - so people couldnt give a monkeys!

i'm not sure that i can fathom why else it would be!

[Knifefighter]

Hey Tom,
Take a hike to San Jose! or atleast get your pending message here..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dzac5jqIF1I

Looks like that guy is more of a MT/boxing guy than WC.

[hhe]

HFY guys and GM Gee are doing a great service to the TCMA by coming out to the public.




"I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and mean to keep
doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said
against me won't amount to anything."

Abraham Lincoln
1809-1865, Sixteenth President of the United States

[sanjuro_ronin]

Looks like that guy is more of a MT/boxing guy than WC.

He actually mentioned just that:
"My school is doing GREAT, and I am making lots of MONEY teaching MUAY THAI, boxing and Jujitsu. "

[Wayfaring]

Looks like that guy is more of a MT/boxing guy than WC.

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly does a MT/Boxing guy "look like" as opposed to a WC guy?

[Wayfaring]

You could try - but you wouldn't make it.

Because you HFY guys are the champions at this...(ie.- gaining other people's hostility).

Almost every single one of you who post here act like you've been brainwashed by some cult - and it is particularly annoying to many, many people.

Thread after thread after thread after thread.

No, you guys are the champs.

Victor,

Merry Christmas. Tom Kagan's got $20 for you.

WF

[Knifefighter]

Ok, I'll bite. What exactly does a MT/Boxing guy "look like" as opposed to a WC guy?

Actually, you are the WC guy... do you think that is representative of a guy who teaches/trains WC?

[Wayfaring]

Actually, you are the WC guy... do you think that is representative of a guy who teaches/trains WC?

That particular guy studied WC in the past, and also trains in MT/Boxing/JJ. I don't know who he trains MT/Boxing/JJ with. He "looks like" himself. He looks "representative of" himself. I've never met him or sparred or rolled with him, so beyond what that clip shows, I don't have a whole lot more to go on.

What do you think is "representative of" a WC guy?

[Tom Kagan]

Tom, you were baiting and stirring things up a little, which I tend to see you do more often than not when joining 'HFY' threads. I was just calling you on it. It is what it is. Batting your eyes now and trying to act innocent isn't helping.. ;)
But I did add to the conversation as well - it wasn't such a personal attack on you as you try to make it out to be. Get over it.

What are you talking about? I rarely post in any threads in this forum. When I do, my comments and questions are very specific to the pieces of conversation I find interesting and which I think can be discussed by reasonable people over the internet. When someone says something I think is amusing, I point it out. If they don't get it, I might start to poke fun at them. There is no difference whatsoever in the very few minority of HFY threads in which I've chosen to post. Go through my post history and you will see. And, if you can show me different, then I'm the one who should re-evaluate.

As I specifically mentioned originally, I was amused at the two initial responses essentially contradicting each other. If you think that's "stirring things", fine, but that's no different in any thread in which I choose to post. Still, if you re-read in this thread, you will notice I did not respond with such "stirring" amusement to you, Duende, or Savi. (Duende did throw out a red herring which I played with, but immediately ended that with "neither here nor there".)

Also, FWIW, if you also re-read, I specifically said you weren't really a part of the same ad-hominem as Savi. Your response just came across as someone who was having a less than ideal day, and I mostly ignored it in my response. For Savi, it appears if there's something else going on which has nothing to do with this thread. As for Duende, it seems to me he recognizes internet discussion for what it is. (I even commended him a long time ago for him cooling down and re-editing something he posted which he later regretted.)


The only way you can stop any of us from pointing the finger at you is by keeping the discussion technical without your ever desire to spin your sh!t regarding aspects of HFY. If you can control yourself that much, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Until then, I'm going to call your BS every time.

Your "question" is not specific to HFY, but Wing Chun in general because all Wing Chun share the same weapons.

What BS? The paradox of weapons late in the training cycle applies to the folklore which says the style is for military/insurgency. To say this discussion isn't about HFY is misleading. It is HFY history which strongly speaks of secret societies committed to overthrowing the Qing. There's only a scattering of anecdotes in other's "history", and, from my perspective, they are more of a comment on the time than anything for which the training may be undertaken. The rest of WC doesn't really share this to such veracity. (This is only one of many apparent paradoxes in the system, such as what is discussed below.) If you can't point out anything specific in history which would cause a drastic change in methodology during a time where people speak of its use for insurgency, fine, but stop being a pain about it. Take a cue from Duende and Wafaring and admit anything would only be speculation.


Saying that HFY chose to use "outdated" weapons is very subjective, misleading, and doesn't even address the fact that all Wing Chun uses the pole and the swords too. If you were trying to corner HFYWCK with your belittling statement, you were in fact doing it to all Wing Chun including your own. That being the case, you were really saying that all Wing Chun uses outdated weapons.

I and others have said it repeatedly over the years: The system uses impractical weapons. Even if you go back in history the long pole and the short swords were not great choices for the time period from a purely functional perspective. It is a simple fact - born out by the documented collective histories of armies throughout the world - even those without firearms. From a functional perspective, there are better choices than an 8 1/2 to 14 foot pole or two 14 inch blades, even at the time of the Red Boats. Even if they were "practical", there are quite a few glaring holes in such an arsenal if the goal is to be useful as weaponry.

Poles meant to hurt, maim, and kill are either shorter or end bladed, or used in drastically different scenarios requiring drastically different training (e.g.: Phalanx). The bladed weapons are either longer or shorter, save for the Machete - but there is no link to this weapon in history or functionality, and you don't wield two of them.

The fact that there is you find such statements controversial now is surprising to me. I've mentioned it in previous threads without you or anyone else taking offense. It doesn't belittle anyone. Chinese culture doesn't have any problem with similar apparent paradoxes.

In a system which purports to train "attributes", it's hardly "having a go" (as JPinAZ accused) to state that a weapon choice may have nothing to do with the weapon's practicality as a weapon. Sheesh, the U.S. Army uses heavily altered pugil sticks in a manner having nothing to do with the practicality of stabbing people with a bayonet - pointing out such apparent paradoxes don't seem to bother them.

There's no "cornering". There is an apparent paradox there. I'm hardly the first to notice this particular paradox, and other ones. I asked in this thread on HFY differences something specific in HFY history which had a chance to shed some light on it.


I'd have to say with a comment like that, you do not have a deep enough understanding of the weaponry behind Wing Chun. You do not have an understanding of the relationship behind the hand to hand science and the weapons. You do not have a deep enough understanding of the culture and times of the development of HFY to make such an obscure statement about it.

You think you can stop someone from pointing out something coming from you they may call "questionable" or "unreasonable"? Don't think so. How you react determines how convincing your story may be.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, regardless of the ad-hominem in it. As I said before, I'm cool with making this thread instead about me. Additionally, what you say may very well be the case - I have no qualms contemplating it. (Can you do the same and entertain obviously contradictory thoughts with what you know to be "true" for yourself?)

Notwithstanding, the relationship between the "hand to hand science and the weapons" is immaterial. It does not turn functionally obsolete and ill suited weapons into a practical arsenal to be used as weapons when there are better options available. (It does point to the reasons for their choice, however.)

[Tom Kagan]

Hey Tom,
Take a hike to San Jose! or atleast get your pending message here..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dzac5jqIF1I


Do you speak for the person in the video? Perhaps, because you post from the UK, you might be one of the people I went out of my way to expose as white supremacists jerking him around and fanning the flames by fraudulently pretending to be him online? Regardless, I think it is safe to say your comment has nothing to do with this thread.

[Tom Kagan]

Victor,

Merry Christmas. Tom Kagan's got $20 for you.

WF

Funny.

There are cheaper options in Brooklyn, so I'm only willing to chip in $10 for Victor.

[Wayfaring]

I and others have said it repeatedly over the years: The system uses impractical weapons. Even if you go back in history the long pole and the short swords were not great choices for the time period from a purely functional perspective. It is a simple fact - born out by the documented collective histories of armies throughout the world - even those without firearms. From a functional perspective, there are better choices than an 8 1/2 to 14 foot pole or two 14 inch blades, even at the time of the Red Boats. Even if they were "practical", there are quite a few glaring holes in such an arsenal if the goal is to be useful as weaponry.

I suppose the entire Shaolin approach was impractical weapons - that's probably why all of the temples were destroyed by cannon's from 150m.

I thought the choice of weapons were influenced by the law and martial rule at the time. A traveling monk or opera person with a robe concealing 14 inch blades and a walking stick might get by without being arrested. Someone with more effective military weaponry would probably be killed by traveling military troops.

Sheesh, didn't you watch your episodes of "Kung Fu" with David Carradine?

So impractical is dependent upon circumstances. Expertise with weapons usually is preceded by martial law dictating what weapons could legally be accessible. That's why you have all the threshing implements as weapons in Okinawan systems.

[Phil Redmond]

Base on the comments and questions by Tom K. and Knifefighter, seem like they do not have any fighting experience. They think fighting has a particular looks to it call the Wing Chun style.

I don't know about Tom K. but I have a video with highlights of some of Knifefighter's fights. Some are bareknuckle cage fights. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

We gone over this a few time, what does someone using WC look like when they fight?
And why is it important?
Well, typically, we all know Muay Thai fighters and TKD fighters and and Boxers by how they look when they fight, so what makes WC any different?
IF we see WC looking a certain way in Demos and training, shouldn't it look the same in fighting?
All the other arts I mention look the same in training and in fighting and we can add to those:
MMA
Kyokushin
Judo
BJJ
Ethiopian Sumo ;)

[TAYLOR1]

Sanjuro_ronin,

In my opinion, techniques may look the same. A certain style may be based on a set of techniques. My understanding of wing chun is that it is based on principles and concepts.

What does a concept look like? All buildings are based on certain basic concepts of structure, but not all buildings look a like. I would say all wing chun share some the same concepts but their expression may look different from each other.

Not all wing chun lineages share all of the same concepts. Because of that, the expressions (techniques ) may look different. Each lineage should be preserved and respected as such.

[t_niehoff]

We gone over this a few time, what does someone using WC look like when they fight?
And why is it important?
Well, typically, we all know Muay Thai fighters and TKD fighters and and Boxers by how they look when they fight, so what makes WC any different?
IF we see WC looking a certain way in Demos and training, shouldn't it look the same in fighting?
All the other arts I mention look the same in training and in fighting and we can add to those:
MMA
Kyokushin
Judo
BJJ
Ethiopian Sumo ;)

You are correct.

All MAs have at their core, various ways of moving (ways that they have found over time to be effective ways of moving to deal with certain combative problems). Those ways of moving are that art's/method's techniques, mechanics, "concepts", etc. all rolled up into one. (Which is why you can't see WCK "concepts" without seeing WCK movement). If you move one way in "training" and another way in application (fighting), then your training has been unproductive (because you are practicing what you don't do).

The reason most people in WCK don't and can't move like they do in "training" is because they aren't starting with the fight, with application -- which is what WCK really is: fighting -- (and then practicing that), but instead starting from theory (how they believe things should work).

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro_ronin,

In my opinion, techniques may look the same. A certain style may be based on a set of techniques. My understanding of wing chun is that it is based on principles and concepts.

What does a concept look like? All buildings are based on certain basic concepts of structure, but not all buildings look a like. I would say all wing chun share some the same concepts but their expression may look different from each other.

Not all wing chun lineages share all of the same concepts. Because of that, the expressions (techniques ) may look different. Each lineage should be preserved and respected as such.

That doesn't make any sense.
Your body moves a certain way when you do certain things, if you train to move in a specific way when doing specific things, then it should be constant.

[golgo]

Sanjuro_ronin,

In my opinion, techniques may look the same. A certain style may be based on a set of techniques. My understanding of wing chun is that it is based on principles and concepts.

What does a concept look like? All buildings are based on certain basic concepts of structure, but not all buildings look a like. I would say all wing chun share some the same concepts but their expression may look different from each other.

Not all wing chun lineages share all of the same concepts. Because of that, the expressions (techniques ) may look different. Each lineage should be preserved and respected as such.

I have been taught essentially the same thing at my kwoon. Even within TWC or our Kwoon, our expressions of the art my look different.

[Wayfaring]

concepts are find. Do you know what a tan sao, vt punch, bong sao looks like. There are moves that should be easily seen in a fight. The roof top fight with wu chun lam didnt look like kickboxing it looked like vt. It doesnt look like chi sao but it should be recognisable. I have seen my seniors and me in fights and while not technically perfect (especially me) it looked like vt. Straight verticle punches etc. I find when people join in a thread just to defend there training partners and style with ****ty threats (why dont you try hfy unless your sacred etc) you make you your style and your fellow students look like idiots that cant stand up for themselves. Also the old well you haven't been in a fight is really lam

bennyvt,

Tan sao, Bong sau are from a close range with a bridge. If you fight a boxer who dances in and out of jab range with no bridge you won't see those techniques. If there is no bridge you don't need to collapse it. There are different problems to solve. Short range punches with hip and elbow connected and wing chun power you will see. Looking at it from a technique only perspective is a shallow understanding. That's why I keep asking what does wing chun "look like"?

As far as hfy people responding, what would you do if people called your seniors and you "dodgy" like you did?

[Knifefighter]

So, Knifefighter what is WC fighting to you?

Since I believe there shouldn't be a disconnect between training and fighting, I'd say the movements should be similar to these:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&resnum=1&q=wooden+dummy&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=3#

Those are the types of movements you guys train, right?

[Wayfaring]

Since I believe there shouldn't be a disconnect between training and fighting, I'd say the movements should be similar to these:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&resnum=1&q=wooden+dummy&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=3#

Those are the types of movements you guys train, right?

No.

Seriously, Jackie Chan?

[sanjuro_ronin]

No.

Seriously, Jackie Chan?

Don't knock JC, he can do the WD better than 98% of all WC people.

[t_niehoff]

Since I believe there shouldn't be a disconnect between training and fighting, I'd say the movements should be similar to these:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qaP1X-lEtgc

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&resnum=1&q=wooden+dummy&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=3#

Those are the types of movements you guys train, right?

There shouldn't be a disconnect between training and fighting. In fact, I think the separation in a person's mind of the two (training/fighting) is already the beginning of the disconnect. Is there training to swim apart from swimming?

[Wayfaring]

Hey Knifefighter,

These are the movements you train, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So60uDg2x6o

[Wayfaring]

There shouldn't be a disconnect between training and fighting. In fact, I think the separation in a person's mind of the two (training/fighting) is already the beginning of the disconnect. Is there training to swim apart from swimming?

And thus, another HFY thread reaches it's inevitable conclusion on KFO....

Terence, this is such a novel concept - we've never considered it. Can you please tell us one of your stories about dry land swimming?

[Knifefighter]

Hey Knifefighter,

These are the movements you train, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So60uDg2x6o

Not really... that would be the TKD incorporation of their interpretation of BJJ. I train BJJ, not TKD.

[Wayfaring]

Not really... that would be the TKD incorporation of their interpretation of BJJ. I train BJJ, not TKD.

Oh but if the movements are similar it's the same thing, right? There's guard, passing guard, side mount, and an Americana. What's so different?

[Knifefighter]

Oh but if the movements are similar it's the same thing, right? There's guard, passing guard, side mount, and an Americana. What's so different?

In a way you are right. The actual fighting is going to look similar to that on a macro scale, and it does.

The specific details that were shown were wrong and those would look different.

[Tom Kagan]

What the hell? Why do you have to attack me through Taylor’s post? Taylor is his own man and acts on his own volition. Your play here is utter nonsense.

This is the second time you've used another poster’s comments to throw mud at someone else.

Get a hold of yourself.

My comment was to Taylor. The fact that I said to him you can speak for yourself, but you take that as an insult, is amusing.

And where is this first time to this "second time" to which you refer?


Is it in your tradition to be so self-righteous? Just read your own posts. You’re guilty of your own accusations. Leading by example?

Did I accuse you of being self righteous? Heck, beyond saying you have a bug up your @ass, did I make any accusations?


Your continued “name calling” and lewd suggestions throughout this thread are very clear indications of a person who is simply not here to have productive discourse on topics he supposedly has an interest in. How is it you think that having a discussion with Duende whilst insulting his family members to be “reasonable”?

What names did I call you? What insults did I hurl at you? Find them. I doubt you can because they don't exist. What does exist is my questions and comments on subjects which can be reasonably discussed over the internet.



I have decided to question your intention regarding this thread: 1) due to your history of past discussions with HFY members and 2) your comments on this thread show signs of history repeating itself. You’ve given several people reason to question your intention, and so far you’ve done nothing to prove our suspicions wrong. Rather, you continue to stir more BS. Perceived slights?

Sorry Tom, no free lunches here.

As I said before, I have no problem if you want to make this about me. Again, you reference "past discussions". What are you talking about? Pull up those discussions. As for my intentions it's simple: I ask questions and make comments on subjects I find interesting that can be reasonably discussed over the internet. What's yours?

[t_niehoff]

And thus, another HFY thread reaches it's inevitable conclusion on KFO....

Terence, this is such a novel concept - we've never considered it. Can you please tell us one of your stories about dry land swimming?

If HFY trains people to do in fighting what they do in training (which of course it doesn't), then why was Milton brought in as an example of HFY's training? He's not moving anything like he moves in the WCK forms or drills -- he's not using WCK movement at all. He's boxing/kickboxing.

BTW, it's easy to see if a school is a McDojo or not -- just watch the instructor spar (if he doesn't or won't spar, then McDojo) and the students spar (if they don't spar, then McDojo) and see if they move in sparring like they train to move or if it all goes out the window when they spar (McDojo). This would tell you, for example, if theTKD jiujitsu school you brought up was McDojo. Same with any WCK school.

[Wayfaring]

If HFY trains people to do in fighting what they do in training (which of course it doesn't), then why was Milton brought in as an example of HFY's training? He's not moving anything like he moves in the WCK forms or drills -- he's not using WCK movement at all. He's boxing/kickboxing.

I have no idea why that vid was brought in. I'm not going to dissect his video w/r to wc body methods, etc. I'm sure if you asked him he could elaborate on which concepts and aspects of HFY WC contribute to his overall game.



BTW, it's easy to see if a school is a McDojo or not -- just watch the instructor spar (if he doesn't or won't spar, then McDojo) and the students spar (if they don't spar, then McDojo) and see if they move in sparring like they train to move or if it all goes out the window when they spar (McDojo). This would tell you, for example, if theTKD jiujitsu school you brought up was McDojo. Same with any WCK school.

McDojo is just talking about the fast food like replication of a franchise. Mostly the TKD ATA school training ground work I brought up would fit that bill. But then again you do like to make up your own definitions and define that as truth, don't you?

[Wayfaring]

In a way you are right. The actual fighting is going to look similar to that on a macro scale, and it does.

The specific details that were shown were wrong and those would look different.

On a macro scale, a lot of things look similar. Which kind of reminds me of a Neal McCoy song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymOGM3d1cMU

[TAYLOR1]

Sanjuro Ronin,

Not all wing chun lineages use the same exact set of techniques. Some lineages incorporate and blend from other styles. Even with the Yip Man lineage, the Moy Yat and William Chung lineages are different. The footwork is different.

Regarding boxing and muay tai, I haven't trained in them. I've only watched movies and videos but haven't had trainers explain details. As such, my knowledge is limited. I don't just throw all Muay Tai teachers and masters as the same. Doing so with all fighting systems is inappropriate.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro Ronin,

Not all wing chun lineages use the same exact set of techniques. Some lineages incorporate and blend from other styles. Even with the Yip Man lineage, the Moy Yat and William Chung lineages are different. The footwork is different.

Regarding boxing and muay tai, I haven't trained in them. I've only watched movies and videos but haven't had trainers explain details. As such, my knowledge is limited. I don't just throw all Muay Tai teachers and masters as the same. Doing so with all fighting systems is inappropriate.

My WC experience is Moy Yat from Sifu Chan and Tang.
I agree with what you mention in regards to footwork and incorporating from other systems.
Here is the thing, when you see a MT coach or students train their MT, it looks exactly the same as when they apply their MT in a fight, ring or otherwise.
We know that is not the case, typically, with WC.