Honest HFY Question-

[JPinAZ]

Forms do not lie no matter what a student or teacher says.

I totally agree

It is tradition for Sifu to add their own signature to their forms . One purpose of this is to enable those with knowledge to identify where the student learned or what Sifu had influence over that students art no matter what the student says.

Yip Man added several unique signatures to his wing chun. Many of his students added their own signatures. For example Robert Chu could explain the signatures of his teacher Cheung Sifu. No matter where you go if you know you can always identify the wing chun that stems from Hawkins Cheung. This is just an example.

Again I can see your point. But if the Sifu adds or subtracts to a form or anything else in WC to make it personal, that is just thier own style. If a system of MA's is complete, then there is no reason to add/subtract anything to give personal flavor. This is most likely why we so many differences between the lines that have come down since YM's teachings.
Now, I can understand focusing on certain aspects of the forms from time-to-time to help train something that is being focused on in class. But this is more of SLT drilling over SNT. (more below)

My point, HFY forms at least the ones I have seen contain Yip Mans signatures. Things that Yip Man invented and added.

You would have to give examples here. Since you claim you've seen these things, as you say, this should not be too difficult a thing to explain in more detail. From what I have learned of both HFY and YM WC, things are NOT the same. Not the forms, not the concepts, etc. Sure there are similarities, but, you're going to see that in all lines of WC - why? Because they are ALL WC! They all come from the same source. But to say you see things in HFY forms that you know YM 'invented' is something you should probably qualify.

There fore we know that no matter what is said HFY is built at least in part on Yip Man wing chun. The only question is does HFY also contain TWC signatures if it does then it is at least in part an outgrowth of TWC no matter what anyone form HFY says. If HFY does not contain TWC signatures then it stems in part from Yip Man without going through Willian Cheung.

IF HFY in fact did pre date Yip Man wing chun and was not tied to Wong Wah Bo wing chun then it would not contain the 3 forms since they were invented by WWB and Leung Jan.

Do you have any way to actually prove any of this nonsense? My question is, if you are so sure about things, why does HFY have signatures that no other WC has (as far as I know)?
PLease share with us all where exactly you get all your expert knowledge of what HFY has or doesn't have? And please dont say that you've just looked at some pictures.

From a HFY perspective, what we 'see' in the forms follows strict concepts, principles & theories. This is what guides the movements in the forms, and also the movements in combat. The forms also are a way of preserving these concepts/principles/theories. To make changes out of personal interpretation or preference is going against these concepts. If one understand this, then they would realize there is no need to change anything.

Jonathan

[t_niehoff]

Hello,
re- Signatures
You mention YM signatures, where did you see the HFY forms?

I saw the HFY SNT which looked pretty much like the TWC advanced SNT -- and in my view they have YM "signatures". I also know the TWC forms, and they all have those "signatures". Since it appears that the HFY forms and TWC forms are "pretty much alike", it follow that HFY forms have those signatures.

If it is from Master Meng (or his branch schools) he is a HFY member who was formerly a YM lineage student via Moy Yat, so it could be previous training coming through.

No, you're missing hispoint -- the signatures are in the choreography (the movements and the sequences themselves).

If it was from HFY HQ I would like to know what specific signatures you are talking about and how you know they are YM specific.

Things like ending movements in SNT with the huen sao,as opposed to the lop sao.

BTW I would be very careful with your implications, some might take your post as saying GM Gee is lying, which as we both know will not end well.

Matt

Not end well. LOL!

It doesn't follow that saying the HFY/TWC forms have YM signatures that Garrett is *necessarily* "lying" -- it could be, for example, that he learned his forms from someone, Wang Ming, just as Garrett says, but that Wang "added" those signatures. There are a numberofother possiblites. Until we know the real history through independently verifiable evidence of lineage, any *theory*, including the HFY oral traditions, are unproved and remain speculation.

[t_niehoff]

Do you have any way to actually prove any of this nonsense?

Oh, you mean like independently verifiable evidence of lineage? Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[JPinAZ]

Oh, you mean like independently verifiable evidence of lineage? Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

No, I mean like any evidence HORSRIDER has seen and experienced HFY's forms in person. As well as TWC's. Along with Yip Man's. Horserider is making conclusions regarding all 3, I'm curious exactly what he bases these on. Hopfeully experience and not just speculation.
Examples of what he sees that HFY has 'borrowed from' and what was 'invented' by YM as he claims are probably necessary to back up the 'nonsense' he is talking. Can't you even read?? BTW, I'm not calling the pot anything. But, I suggest you lay off the pot yourself..

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . .Again I can see your point. But if the Sifu adds or subtracts to a form or anything else in WC to make it personal, that is just thier own style. If a system of MA's is complete, then there is no reason to add/subtract anything to give personal flavor. This is most likely why we so many differences between the lines that have come down since YM's teachings. . . . . .
Jonathan

Wing Chun isn't a "Do" or a "Pai". It's principle based "Kuen". A Pai (system) like Ying Jow Pai is a dogma with formal sets that cannot be changed or added to. Wing Chun on the other hand is a "kuen" (fist style) which implies that it can evlove. There was once no "Do" in Wing Chun. Now there is. As existing fighting styles change WC fighting should evolve as well. Dogmatic purists probably won't agree with me. Fighters will.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Wing Chun isn't a "Do" or a "Pai". It's principle based "Kuen". A Pai (system) like Ying Jow Pai is a dogma with formal sets that cannot be changed or added to. Wing Chun on the other hand is a "kuen" (fist style) which implies that it can evlove. There was once no "Do" in Wing Chun. Now there is. As existing fighting styles change WC fighting should evolve as well. Dogmatic purists probably won't agree with me. Fighters will.

If people cared more about wither something worked or not, more than if it was "legit" or not, things would be better for all, in all MA.
Personally when someone wants to take a look at my Johnson/lineage, first they buy me dinner and a movie ( hey, I'm not cheap), and then we step out on to the mat.

[Phil Redmond]

I've received a few emails from people who claim they have evidence as to the source of both versions. After reading these emails here's what I think.
IMHO I think the point of this thread is based on the "story" that both men learned a "secret" Wing Chun style from the Triads in the New Territories and they made an oath not to reveal their source. Based on that "story" some people are looking for a connection between the two. Both Sifus say there is no connection. So unless some one finds evidence it's just a story. I will say that HFY, TWC and all other WC are similar in that they were all developed by bipedal, carbon based, H0mosapiens. So there is a connection

[sanjuro_ronin]

I've received a few emails from people who claim they have evidence as to the source of both versions. After reading these emails here's what I think.
IMHO I think the point of this thread is based on the "story" that both men learned a "secret" Wing Chun style from the Triads in the New Territories and they made an oath not to reveal their source. Based on that "story" some people are looking for a connection between the two. Both Sifus say there is no connection. So unless some one finds evidence it's just a story. I will say that HFY, TWC and all other WC are similar in that they were all developed by bipedal, carbon based, H0mosapiens. So there is a connection

To insinuate that " bipedal, carbon based, h0m0sapiens" created WC and its many "lineages", is an insult to "bipedal, carbon based, h0m0sapiens".

[JPinAZ]

I've received a few emails from people who claim they have evidence as to the source of both versions. After reading these emails here's what I think.

Curious, since you brought it up, what exactly this 'evidence' is. Not really understanding why you bring this up (the point about emails you've recieved)?

[osprey3883]

I will say that HFY, TWC and all other WC are similar in that they were all developed by bipedal, carbon based, H0mosapiens. So there is a connection

Phil,
Thats funny!

To insinuate that " bipedal, carbon based, h0m0sapiens" created WC and its many "lineages", is an insult to "bipedal, carbon based, h0m0sapiens".

Sanjuro,
Are you saying it is insulting to humans to say that humans created WC?

Matt

[Phil Redmond]

Curious, since you brought it up, what exactly this 'evidence' is. Not really understanding why you bring this up (the point about emails you've recieved)?

My post explains why I brought it up. But I'll explain it to you. Since some people believe the "story" they continue to try to find comparisons. I wrote what I wrote so some people might think more about training than looking for needles in a hay stack.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Sanjuro,
Are you saying it is insulting to humans to say that humans created WC?

Matt

Yes, yes it is.

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,
Thats funny!

I try <<takes a bow>>

Sanjuro,
Are you saying it is insulting to humans to say that humans created WC?

Matt

I guess so. Look at how long this thread is.

[osprey3883]

It doesn't follow that saying the HFY/TWC forms have YM signatures that Garrett is *necessarily* "lying" -- it could be, for example, that he learned his forms from someone, Wang Ming, just as Garrett says, but that Wang "added" those signatures. There are a numberofother possiblites. Until we know the real history through independently verifiable evidence of lineage, any *theory*, including the HFY oral traditions, are unproved and remain speculation.

Lots of possibilities but one thing is for sure, T will make lots of statements about things he knows nothing about.

Matt

[osprey3883]

My post explains why I brought it up. But I'll explain it to you. Since some people believe the "story" they continue to try to find comparisons. I wrote what I wrote so some people might think more about training than looking for needles in a hay stack.

Hello,
I think that if you cut out about 1/3 to 1/2 of this thread it has been a pretty good discussion. We will always have some disagreements and miscommunications based on the communication mode of the internet, but hopefully over time we can understand each other better.

Matt