Think of these points:
Regarding M Hiang "admitting" something, and GMT "not", regarding multiple teachers. I've never heard GMT or anyone else ever say he had only one teacher ever for anything. We know he is also a black belt in judo, so he has told us he had more than one teacher. So to say he has denied what M Hiang has admitted, to my knowledge is not accurate.
And, if someone were to ask me my lineage, I'd have to give my most direct instructor who I studied from up to BB, then his teacher (GMT), then his (ICM), then his (SKTJ). Although I have had at least three or four or more black belt/master level instructors in SD, including both GMT and his brother, kind of horizontally rather than vertically. Saying HIS "teacher" is ICM, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't have others, too. Does anyone know that GMT has actually, explicitly said, he learned everything from ICM and nothing from anyone else? Ive never heard that.
Also, I was never told that "our" Pa Kua (Classical) was THE Pa Kua invented by Tai Hu Chang (or whoever). We were told, he invented "pa kua," and then we were started on a "classical" form of it. I think at first, I didn't know there were other forms of pa kua, not because that was what I was told, but because I didn't know any better. Someone else, who didn't know any better, might in fact imply that the first Classical Pa Kua we were taught was THE ORIGINAL Pa Kua.
Actually it's known as "the Original form" in most circles....A Jerry Allen Johnson utube video list it as Tung Hai-Ch'uan's Pa kua (different strokes for different folks
) I don't blame that on GMT. And later, other versions of pa kua come out to supplement the Classical. I've got a book by Dr. Yang Jwing Ming listing tons of different versions and forms and derivatives of the original pa kua. No one ever told me the first one was the original.
Same for tai chi. What others have called "our" tai chi, is clearly not JUST "ours." We were taught the history of tai chi, and then taught a basic common tai chi form. No one ever told me it was the original tai chi form invented by the originator. Then later more tai chi forms are given to us, which is probably wise: the basic common stuff first: Tai Chi 101, before the higher levels.
And the same for other stuff.
And, my most direct teacher told me many times (one of GMT's first students ever), that he knew well there was more to even that pa kua, and tai chi, but as he put it, "Why do the same moves over and over just to get a couple variations?"
And here's something I'm pondering: many imply that GMT goes somewhere, learns a form, and then gives it to us, whether it be from a book or whatever. If it was from another PERSON, why isn't that person blowing the whistle? If it is from a book that anyone can get, where is the book? Does anyone have any text for the four Golden Leopards? How about the Meteor Fist? And as for the tai chi and pa kua, for example, resembling other stuff that is basic and readily available, eventually, what is to say that doesn't mean they have that common thread to another source? I'm not ready to say it does or it doesn't, I'm just not ready to assume the worst.
Also, I remember, when for example we were first taught The Five Direction Palm and the Connecting Fist and the four Black Tigers and the Kwan Tao, the three White Crane, even the three Birds from M H, we were told to now go out and teach them to others. I hope that didn't cheapen those I taught it to, because they didn't get it from the source. Yes, I'd rather have learned it from GMT, or MH, and I have been fortunate to do so. Heck, if I had my wish I'd go back in time and beg ICM to teach it to me, or lets go really wild, from SK or the Temple myself. But none of us can do that, so we get what we can from who we can, and hopefully the best we can.
So, acknowledging that GMT knows a lot more about martial arts and fighting than I ever will, if he learns something from anywhere, and is then willing to pass some of it on to me, good for me.
Ok, so there could be a moral problem if in fact he says and the student believes it is something he learned only from ICM who only learned it from SKTJ who only learned it inside a Temple in China. But I don't accept that is what I have been told about any particular form or system, although that is probably true for some of it. Although 1 + 1 = 2, some people insist on making it 3.
And I have had at least five other teachers in five other systems -- TKD, Judo, ninjitsu, Karate (kind of, it was a hybrid system "made up" by its local master, from a combination of karate, Kempo, and kung fu), and also a traditional kung fu system. In some of those schools, I knew who the teacher's teacher was, in some cases met them, in some not. Some I can't say I knew or asked or cared. Maybe naive, but I wanted to know, "What do you have, and what can you teach me?" And like with SD, those questions were answered. Even if others were not.
Originally Posted by kwaichang
Reply With Quote
). Thanks to Tensei85 for his injection of manners and common sense to the discussion. Thanks to Old and Used, One Student, Yeti, Wook, and others for having a discussion where differing views are heard and discussed intelligently and respectfully. Wook- good to see you back from semi-retirement.
