To be or not to be!!!

[Scott Powers]

I can't listen to this stupidity any longer!

+++I've seen Garrett Gee and HFY in person. I've read the HFY articles and had discussions here and on other forums with HFY practitioners. My conclusion is that HFY is repackaged TWC and their unproven "historical claims" only reinforce that conclusion. Interestingly, these "historical claims" are being used to market "the system" along the same lines that Cheung used. If they want me, and others, to believe it is not TWC, they need to prove it -- with lineage. TN


Terence, It is clear that you are not qualified to make these ignorant statements. I don't recall either the TWC family or the HFY familiy confirming that you have any measure of a grasp on either of these systems. From the articles that I have read and all of the information that I have seen on HFY and TWC they seem to be alot different and share no more simularities then any other two systems of WCK. I mean SLT,CK,BJ are in both systems how different can they be at first look? As an outsider looking in and from the articles I have read personally the HFY is far more technical information. I admit I have not seen alot of either system. But I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I know enough on either of these systems to post some of the things that yourself and some of the others are saying here. You folks act like it is so strange that WCK came from Shaolin. How many chinese styles claim shaolin roots? But in the more popular story Ng mui was thought to be a shaolin nun! yours and some of the other's problem with HFY seems to be on a personal level. It would be appreciated if you and your friends took that up with HFY/VTM people with personal E-mails, phone calls or just pay them a visit and have deep discussion on these subjects! but this junk seems to constantly get in the way of better quality post with the true intent on sharing not bickering.
You openly post attacking what Garret Gee presents as his family lineage. it is one thing to raise questions but you choose to do it in the form of an insult . My Sifu always told me that you should respect all styles and instructors of martial arts. This reflects on you not the style or instructor! Not every one will take what you and your friends do lightly! I'm suprised more has not been done. But I credit them for putting up with it thus far. From what I read a few post ago your teacher has a very questionable past and possibly a history of stealing information presenting it as his own. I think there was also an issue with him not ever given the blessing of becoming a Sifu. This might be the reason he does not like to use the term "Sifu" to discribe teacher of Chinese kung fu. Now if I keep mentioning this would you be friendly and polite with your response? I use these as an example of the fact that every teacher and lineage can be questioned and disrespected. To ask these personal questions in public can only be taken as an insult. As a third party watching this I can say that it only reflects on the person launching the insults. I have no intentions of going back and fourth with you so fill free to reply but, You really should think about what I'm trying to tell you here.

Scott P

[dbulmer]

Savi,

The last post was uncalled for - only TN knows for sure if he's quackers

[t_niehoff]

Scott Powers wrote:

"From the articles that I have read and all of the information that I have seen on HFY and TWC they seem to be alot different and share no more simularities then any other two systems of WCK. I mean SLT,CK,BJ are in both systems how different can they be at first look?" SP

Let everyone make up their own mind. Why doesn't the VTM post HFY and TWC forms side-by-side? Then they can explain how the forms which look almost exactly alike (even different Yip Man students have more variety in their forms), contain Yip Man signature moves, many TWC signature moves (like the hopping entry technique) and drills specific to, i.e., invented by, Yip Man lineage, etc. are two distinct "systems." TN

"You openly post attacking what Garret Gee presents as his family lineage. it is one thing to raise questions but you choose to do it in the form of an insult" SP

If I suddenly began claiming that I knew "the oldest form of WCK", a style that I say that I learned from some mysterious source that couldn't be confirmed (but nevertheless I contended had been around for millenia, though no one heard of it -- oh, and BTW, Savi, having a photo that I claim is my sifu doesn't prove anything: again it all relies on taking one person's word for everything), I shouldn't be surprised if people question me. And if that "oldest form of WCK" had the same forms, had many of the same unique drills, and shared terminology with, as say the Augustine Fong system (who has added many "signature moves" and extensions to his forms to make them quite distinctive), I wouldn't be surprised if folks pointed out that obvious similarity and asked me to explain it. TN

Is that an insult? I'm sorry but I don't think that just because someone calls themselves "grandmaster" or makes some claims of being a distinctive lineage means they are entitled to be believed or respected. Respect is earned. Before I had seen Garrett and HFY, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. What I saw, provided more evidence for me that all he's teaching is beefed-up TWC. I could be wrong, and if I see or hear something substantial that so indicates, I'll change my mind. If HFY wants to be accepted as a legitimate lineage, IMO they need to do what every other legitimate lineage has done: prove lineage. Then explain how HFY comes to have the same forms, etc. as TWC. Until they answer these serious questions, they can't expect their claims to be taken seriously. TN

Ffinally, it doesn't matter what my skills are, what my lineage is, what my sifu has or has not done -- none of that has anything to do with whether HFY is TWC or not. Attacking me won't answer that question. In fact, I think these attacks just demonstrate that you can't answer the question (if you could, you'd just prove me wrong and that would be that). Since you can't answer the question favorably, you attack the person asking the question. Consider this: if I claimed YKS WCK, or any other legitimate lineage, was nothing more than Yip Man WCK, a YKS practitioner could respond and refute my assertion very easily (and wouldn't need to attack me). Why can't HFY do the same? Why should they have special treatment? TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Some opinions FWIW-

1. In different ways and in different places and threads- attacking
Hendrik or Terence or any one else personally does nothing to buttress the logic of any position. Quite different lineages are involved between Hendrik, Terence and myself--- but neither Hendrik or Terence have been "wandering"- in fact quite focused
on their individual theses. Questioning one's ethics and the other's mental condition are uncalled for and appear to be desperate substitutes for logic and evidence.

2. If the HFY folks want to do Shaolin revisionist history there are
Shaolin forums where they can get peer review of sorts. Aside from that if the revisionist history was subjected to a truly anonymous peer review among competent historians- that would be a disciplined way to go.

3. If there is a separate HFY thread or forum without reference to
Ip Man wing chun- I would wish them well and would make no comments whatsoever. And, I have no problem with anyone wishing to study HFY, JKD, TKD, Wing Chun Do or anyother martial
activity or sport.

4. But claims of superiority to other wing chun or "purer" ancestry
or "more scientific" foundations will and should invite commentary.

[KPM]

For what its worth.....I have to speak up in support of Terrence. I don't think he is being either rude or unreasonable. I agree with everything he has said and have many of the same reservations about what I have read and seen of HFY that he expresses. Until someone can clearly show why HFY and TWC are so similar, I will have a hard time taking the HFY people seriously. There IS a connection there somewhere. Until that is explained somehow, any "history" provided by the HFY people is suspect. Maybe I am being unreasonable as well, or maybe I am "quakers" like Terrence, but for my logical, reasoning mind that is how is has to be. Anyone can make up a snazzy story. The wing chun world has been exposed to more than one questionable marketing ploy in the past. I have to take the HFY story as more of the same until they can provide evidence or explanations to the contrary. No disrespect intended. That's just the way it is for me, and obviously for many others. Sorry for contributing to the "hijacking" of this thread. But I felt the need to say that.

Keith

[desertwingchun2]

Terrence - Going back to an earlier conversation we had, If posting on the HFYWC system is such a waste of your time why do you continue? Everyone is well aware of your opinions. Obviously attaching your name to HFYWC discussions is one of your favorite online activities. You continue to try and challenge the structures of HFYWC and fail everytime. This TWC/HFY angle will fail just like your previous attempts. In fact anytime you challenge the HFYWC structure it will fail because you have no knowledge regarding the nature of HFYWC. Everything you base your arguements on is form. As we all know form is empty. Any arguements you attempt are still born.

Why doesn't the VTM post HFY and TWC forms side-by-side?- TN

explain how the forms which look almost exactly alike- TN

TWC signature moves (like the hopping entry technique) -TN

Then explain how HFY comes to have the same forms, etc.-TN

Form, Form, Form, Form ...... move beyond form !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

San sao thinking shows the level of your attainment. This is not an "attack" on you but an observation.

To illustate the difference of HFYWC and TWC three quick illustrations - Saam Moh Kiu, Kiu Sao and Sup Ming Dim.

To my knowledge these are not taught in the TWC system. Also these go beyond form. If you do not understand dont blame me for your ignorance. If you truly wanted to see the difference these three are more than enough.

KPM -

Until someone can clearly show why HFY and TWC are so similar, I will have a hard time taking the HFY people seriously. - KPM

TWC people and HFYWC people can definetly see the differences. The point is the internet is no place to learn Kung Fu. If you want to know the difference you need experience to draw from. As far as you taking "the HFY people seriously" all I can say is - anyone can tell you what an apple tastes like. But you can only know the taste when you bite into it yourself.

-David

[Mike Mathews]

Terrance,

Don't you get it? It's not that no one can explain the HFY lineage to you... nobody needs to. There are pictures of Gee Sifu's teacher (Dr. Wong Ming), as well as pictures of his Sifu. The HFY lineage is very clear from the shaolin temple, to Cheung Ng, to Grandmaster Garret Gee, the eigth generation succesor. It is Gee Sifu's method that the students get the precise details of both the history and technical aspects of the system.

None of the WCK systems can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition. Does that mean that they all don't exist? No. If you can't go back and verify the Niehoff lineage back 7 to 10 genarations does that mean that you don't exist?

Again, the HFY people don't need to prove anything to you. The proof is in the systsem. It's too bad that you are so eager to dismiss it that you will never be able to appreciate it.


Mike

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Mike Mathews



The HFY lineage is very clear from the shaolin temple, to Cheung Ng, to Grandmaster Garret Gee, the eigth generation succesor. It is Gee Sifu's method that the students get the precise details of both the history and technical aspects of the system.



None of the WCK systems can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition. Does that mean that they all don't exist? No. If you can't go back and verify the Niehoff lineage back 7 to 10 genarations does that mean that you don't exist?

Mike

Mike,

You are making a big claim here. Who says none of the WCK system can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition?

What position are you in to make this type of Claim for all WCK system? How much have you seen?

From IP Man GM, YKS GM, Fung GM, Cho On GM, None make those claim What makes you have the right to claim such?


Now, that might not be your lineage. So, don't make a conclusion for other lineages.


HFY lineage has its own right and to be respected. However, When HFY follower making broad claim for all wck system be it in Magazine article or this post.

Is that proper?


Is making Broad claim for other WCK lineage reflex the teaching of HFY?

[Phenix]

Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
<<What position are you in to make this type of Claim for all WCK system? How much have you seen? >>HS

**Hendrik, Why don't you answer your own question?

<<From IP Man GM, YKS GM, Fung GM, Cho On GM, None make those claim What makes you have the right to claim such?>>HS

**Hendrik, Why are you speaking for all WCK?

Rolling Hand,

Clock is ticking. your data is needed.



Mike is the one makes the claim. I am the one who ask question.
Can't even ask question?

I refer to IP Man GM, YSK GM, Fung GM, and Cho ON GM individually specifically NOT ALL WCK. Please get that straight.

If you disagree, then show which of the GM above making Claim similar Mike?

[Phil Redmond]

Hi Jim,
You mixed Cantonese and Mandarin in your post.

"Siu is more akin to the principle of Zhuang!"

I learned to speak Cantonese in order to understand WC since it was taught in Cantonese. Can you explain what Zhuang is?

[Chango]

Scott,
Welcome to the board. I have to say that I share your feelings on the posting methods of some on this forum. I also agree with the fact that Terence is clearly not qualified to make such calls on the comparison of HFY and TWC. I find his statments on the subject to be reckless and some what inflamatory. I also strongly feel that if he and a few others have personal issues they should handle them in a personal and private manor. But of course like a drug adict one cannot fix a problem that he or she is not willing to face. welcome to the board anyways.


Terence,
It is very clear that you are not qualified to make claims of HFY being TWC "repackaged". If you really understood what you had only viewed once at a friendship siminar and quite possibly the articles you may have read. Your understanding of what HFY seems to be quite distorted. As a HFY family member I can tell you this. As a matter of fact I would go on a limb and say that from how you discribe HFY there isn't a single member of HFY family will say that you have any sort of idea as to what is HFY. So from that alone I can say that you do not know what you are talking about. Your point of reference is not clear so your judgement is clouded. This would also give rise to the question on how much TWC do you know and understand? I hope it is more then what you have demonstrated on your knowlege of HFY. What TWC family member can varify your understanding of TWC? does your knowlege of this subject come from Robert's stance changing siminar? or can you share more on your personal accounts and experiences with a qualified TWC teacher?

You and this "Yip Man signature move" business. ROFLOL! I have done quite a bit of home work on Yip man and the different experiences and stories that each of his students would share while learning. I cannot say that I remember Yip man ever saying that he had a "signature move". Here we go again with your speculation. It seems that we are back at the same topics and discussion as almost a year ago. No one has to prove any thing to you. Go ahead thinking the world is flat. It's not the problem of the VTM.


Chango (saat geng sau)

[KPM]

Until someone can clearly show why HFY and TWC are so similar, I will have a hard time taking the HFY people seriously. - KPM

TWC people and HFYWC people can definetly see the differences. The point is the internet is no place to learn Kung Fu. If you want to know the difference you need experience to draw from. As far as you taking "the HFY people seriously" all I can say is - anyone can tell you what an apple tastes like. But you can only know the taste when you bite into it yourself.

-David [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi David:

There are definite differences between what is taught by some today even though each learned directly from Yip Man. Differences can arise over time from individual preferences and other influences. It is the similarities that remain that suggest connections. There are just too many similarities between HFY and TWC that no other lineages seem to share. How those similarities came to be needs to be explained. One can look at Leung Ting's WCK and Augustine Fong's WCK and see some very definite differences. But one can also see the similarities that connect them and make them both variations of Yip Man WCK. I and others have seen enough of both HFY and TWC to recognize that there are many similarities that suggest there has to be a connection. One can argue that we need to study the method itself to learn its inner workings in order to be able to judge, but I would say something so superficial and obvious as choreography of forms is hard to deny and doesn't need a "master's degree" to see. As far as your apple analogy.....sure you have to taste it yourself to really know the flavor, but that is not what we are talking about. If someone tried to tell me that the apple grew from a cherry tree, tasting it isn't going to convince me of their argument. I would say "it sure looks like other apples I have eaten that grew from apple trees...not cherry trees. So show me the cherry tree that grew this apple." I stand by my original statements. Something about HFY just doesn't add up. Until someone clearly explains the HFY/TWC connection, I will have a hard time taking the HFY historical claims seriously.

Keith

[t_niehoff]

Mike Matthews wrote:

Don't you get it? It's not that no one can explain the HFY lineage to you... nobody needs to. MM

I agree no one needs to explain it to me -- until they start calling it "truth". All lineages have their legendary history, and we don't spend time arguing about them here because everyone recognizes that. It is only HFY that takes it seriously and wants to convince the world that their "history" is genuine. Well, if that's what they want, then I'm saying there is only one way to do it. TN

There are pictures of Gee Sifu's teacher (Dr. Wong Ming), MM

How do you know that it is some guy named Wong -- because Gee told you. Or that he was a HFY practitioenr -- because Gee told you. How about the history -- because Gee told you. All we have is Gee's word for everything. That may be good enough for you but it is not for me. And certainly it isn't enough to rewrite the history books with. TN

as well as pictures of his Sifu. The HFY lineage is very clear from the shaolin temple, to Cheung Ng, to Grandmaster Garret Gee, the eigth generation succesor. It is Gee Sifu's method that the students get the precise details of both the history and technical aspects of the system.

Of course, because Gee tells you. TN

None of the WCK systems can verify their lineage up to the red boat other than by oral tradition. Does that mean that they all don't exist? No. If you can't go back and verify the Niehoff lineage back 7 to 10 genarations does that mean that you don't exist? MM

No, it proves that most likely WCK began on the Red Boats (which explains why all legitimate lineages can trace themselves back to then and no further). You guys can't even prove back one generations, let alone to the Red Boats. TN

Again, the HFY people don't need to prove anything to you. The proof is in the systsem. It's too bad that you are so eager to dismiss it that you will never be able to appreciate it. MM

Ah, yes, the "proof is in the system" argument. Too bad there is no independent proof. If you guys want to believe Garrett that's fine with me -- people believe all kinds of things. Just don't expect to be taken seriously until some serious questions are answered. TN

--------------------------------------

Chango writes:

It is very clear that you are not qualified to make claims of HFY being TWC "repackaged". If you really understood what you had only viewed once at a friendship siminar and quite possibly the articles you may have read. Your understanding of what HFY seems to be quite distorted. As a HFY family member I can tell you this. As a matter of fact I would go on a limb and say that from how you discribe HFY there isn't a single member of HFY family will say that you have any sort of idea as to what is HFY. So from that alone I can say that you do not know what you are talking about. Your point of reference is not clear so your judgement is clouded. This would also give rise to the question on how much TWC do you know and understand? I hope it is more then what you have demonstrated on your knowlege of HFY. What TWC family member can varify your understanding of TWC? does your knowlege of this subject come from Robert's stance changing siminar? or can you share more on your personal accounts and experiences with a qualified TWC teacher? C

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or master of TWC and HFY to see what is plain before your eyes -- you only need to not let them get clouded. As I said in my post, let folks decide for themselves: have the VTM post TWCs and HFYs forms side-by-side and let people compare (how do they come to have essenitally the same forms? Not even two Yip Man lineages have the same dummy form!). BTW, I'm not the only one seeing the remarkable similarities -- anyone that has studied TWC or seen both TWC and HFY (and isn't part of your "group") sees them as well. For example, how do they come to have the same dummy form (with the hopping entry technique)? You can ignore it, and pretend it doesn't exist, but the questions will remain. (Consider my original post with the A. Fong analogy -- imagine when the similarities to Fong's forms was pointed out to me and all I did was say "there are no similarities, you don't know what you are talking about!"). The refusal to answer the question is revealing in itself. TN

You and this "Yip Man signature move" business. ROFLOL! I have done quite a bit of home work on Yip man and the different experiences and stories that each of his students would share while learning. I cannot say that I remember Yip man ever saying that he had a "signature move". Here we go again with your speculation. It seems that we are back at the same topics and discussion as almost a year ago. No one has to prove any thing to you. Go ahead thinking the world is flat. It's not the problem of the VTM. C

I agree no one has to prove anything to me or anyone -- until you begin making the claims that HFY is making (compare "HFY is the oldest form of WCK" with "I don't have to prove anything to you"; "HFY comes from Shaolin" with "I don't have anything to prove to you"; etc.). If you expect and want folks to believe them, or even take them seriously, you need to provide evidence. You can call it "history" but we all know it is just Garrett's story (and not a particularly clever one: too many holes). You can call HFY the oldest form of WCK or the original WCK but we all know it looks just like TWC (with added "stuff", which, btw only takes it further away from WCK). And you can go around doing what is essentially Yip Man WCK (HFY) and say there is no such thing as "signature moves" but any serious practitioner knows they do exist and what many of them are. So until these things are addressed, there is no point taking HFY's assertions, like that WCK came from Shaolin, seriously. TN

And yes, I understand that the forms aren't application (where the WCK really is) but they are the "texts" and lineages are defined by whose "text" (form, drills, etc.) we use to develop ourselves. We can compare "texts", and the things within the texts that make them unique or particular (signature moves). The odds of TWC and HFY having essentially the same forms (text) while developing independently is astronimical. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Oral tradition and documented history are not the same thing, and everyone, of every lineage, should be ethical enough to clearly distinguish one from the other (whether it be in the discussion of Ng Mui or Yat Chum, Shaolin or Emei, 50 years ago or 100 years ago).

Old photos are tricky business. I think some may remember the problems with Leung Ting's photo of Wong Fei-Hung (turned out to be one of Wong's sons, I think), or the one of wooden dummy training on the boats (that turned out to be a still from an old Hung Ga Kung Fu movie). In most cases, martially speaking, there are at least two ways to cross-check - the martial family (students) and the real family (children). For example, photos of Yip Man (were he not so famous and there so many) could be checked with Lun Gai, Lok Yiu, etc. etc. and with Yip Chun or Yip Ching. Likewise, photos of Cheung Bo and Yuen Kay-San could, until very recently, be checked with Sum Nung, his early students and grand students who met them, and with Ah Chut or Yuen Jo-Tong. A third and fourth way would be through professional or social circles, such as the medical association where they worked, the restaurant where they took tea. Martial masters, doctors, chefs, or other prominent people were well regarded and it should be no trouble at all to get multiple sources to verify who a person was, and what they did.

And its important for everyone to remember that its just a kung fu lineage. People might get caught up in the romance of Shaw bros. flicks, or take it on as a replacement family of sorts, but at the end of the day, no one will live or die or suffer major life-altering trauma as the result of the martial art they practice coming from Shaolin or not, from the Red Junks or not, from 1850 or 1990. And if it does, you need therapy. Really. That's not a cheap shot, that's a reality check. Passion is fine. Love for your hobbies is fine. But it's a trivia question in the end and not even final jeopardy material. It's as dire as knowing the ink composition used 100 years ago in apalachian folk pottery. Master the art, don't let it master you, and for gawd sakes, sexual addiction was bad enough in the 90s, we don't need obsessive compulsive martial behavioral disorder NOS in the 00s.

Enjoy. Chat. Sip tea. If you feel anger, get therapy.

[reneritchie]

Here's a personal story:

When I was in high school I wasted 3 years learning "karate". The teacher claimed that, in addition to Karate, he'd learned "Shaolin" from a Vietnamese monk named Master Shu while living in a special compound in LA. He had a a picture of "Master Shu" in a monk outfit (the red and yellow one) striking a pose. He claimed he learned a lot from "Master Shu", including Drunken Monkey.

I had another friend at the time who was a shodan in a traditional Japanese Jujitsu Ryu. He told me right away the guy sounded fishy and that I should look elsewhere. I didn't listen to him, and we'd argue about it a lot. I ended up helping the "Karate" teacher out a lot, around the school, etc. and had become fiercely defensive. It caused a lot of strain between myself and my friend.

A while later I saw some kung fu flicks with Drunken Monkey, and read some mags and books, and asked the "karate" teacher about it. He said I must have misheard him, he really did Dunken Mantis. Later, when I asked him about that, he again claimed I misheard him, that he did "real" dunken boxing, but you had to be really drunk to learn him, just like "Master Shu" had shown him.

One day I was leafing through an MA mag and was startled to find a picture of "Master Shu". Not just a picture, but the exact same picture. Only the person in the picture wasn't named "Shu" but had a different name, and the picture was from a tour of the Shaolin Monks in France (we had French MA mags back then as well).

Another time, after telling me he spoke both Cantonese and Mandarin fluently, he went to Chinatown for some Qigong lessons and asked if I knew a translator. I asked him why he'd need them. He said the man spoke mandarin and he only knew Cantonese. Later he needed a translator for a Cantonese Tai Gik teacher as well. (Not that he learned from either man more than a couple weeks).

I still defended him, mind you. I was young and I'd made an emotional investment, and there was pride (not wanting to admit I was wrong), denial (not wanting to be wrong), and all sorts of other things at play. Even when you suspect or know something for yourself, its amazing how you can still champion the reverse.

Eventually I was lucky enough to meet my WCK sifu, and I never looked back. Of course, I was branded a traitor by the "karate" teacher, and his new students were told all sorts of stories, and were promised they'd learn the really real secret stuff, since they were much more worthy. They didn't though. Even the die hard, fight-for-a-dime-to-defend-him types didn't. Turned out the "karate" teacher had unsavory business practices and a long history of them, and he skipped town just before it would have turned really ugly for him, leaving his school (and its back rent) to a new student (it close soon thereafter), and various bills to others (he'd put other students names on the phone, on various network marketing schemes he ran under the school's umbrella, etc.)

A martial arts teacher is part parent, part mythical hero to his/her students, and its a relationship all to easily abused. Students can become near-slaves to unscrupulous teachers, losing their time, their money, their reputations, their self-respect.

Of course there are also excellent, highly ethical teachers who have mature, mutually beneficial relationships with their students. There's a local guy here who takes in at-risk students, helps them turn the corner, then pays them to teach classes for others, giving them their first real job and chance to build self respect and real-world skills.

Unfortunately, they don't wear signs. For a prospective student, unless they have some previous knowlegdge, its hard to distinguish the man who trained for 18 years at Songshan Shaolin from the derranged con who says he's master of 18 systems but never left the county. And, perversely, the latter can be even more charismatic, more appealing to some.

So, when people seek support for statements, evidence for claims, foundation for arguments, this is what's behind it. Anyone can say anything, and on the internet, everything. It's nothing personal. It's professional, and that's what this world will force the real deals to become. Professional.