周洪龍 金山鴻勝武舘 - 鴻勝佛家正宗
joseph....what are the age differences that you say are too great btween chan heung? 2) who told you no one used the hung mun hung? was it some chan fam person, or writing? 3) ggm was hung mun, he told jeung yim to go to fut san n join the hung mun. was jeung yim out there promoting clf or was he out there fighting in the revolution for the hung mun? 4) why should a fut san hsk student believe a chan fam person about our history?
Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
Bruh we thought you knew better
when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better
周洪龍 金山鴻勝武舘 - 鴻勝佛家正宗
joseph, when u n i meet in person i will show u my evidence. ......1) what evidence do u have that clearly says jeung yim never called his school "hung victory" 2) whats your evidence to prove the ggm is a myth? 3) where your proof jeung yim never learned from lys?
Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
Bruh we thought you knew better
when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better
Restore the Constitution
Unfortunately, since it's impossible to prove a negative, the proof is going to fall on you. It's like proving you didn't run through the streets naked on your birthday.
Prove Santa Claus doesn't exist. Can't be done.
When seconds count the cops are only minutes away!
Originally Posted by wenshu
Restore the Constitution
At this point with an agreed upon history, regardless of the source or political motivation, it will require hard evidence before anyone would be willing to make changes.
So until evidence surfaces the history stands as is even though you don't trust where the info came from.
When seconds count the cops are only minutes away!
周洪龍 金山鴻勝武舘 - 鴻勝佛家正宗
joseph, u always seem to point out things about jeung yims legacy...why do u ignore the same things aboutyour lineage! there's an issue chan heungs birth date..is it 1815 or 1805? do u think chan fam clf was upset that jeung yim took over theblind guys school, and changed the name from great sage hung to hung/glorious victory? was chan heung in the hun mun? didn't his students encourage him to join the fight but he declined because it was against his buddhist beliefs? oh, and now choy fook is the green grass monk. one of li iu lings writers feels ggm was hung mun's Fong Dai Hung, but feels jeung yim was never a student of ggm. go figure! oh, jeung yim was a latter disciple of chan heung (1867) but jeung yim opened in 1851. so jo, you have as much holes as we do. what now?
Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
Bruh we thought you knew better
when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better
Registered User
Frank,
Lets get back to the main point of our disagreement and that is your attempt to change history by saying Jeung Yim co-founded CLF and we disagree, so it is up to you to prove it. If you think he learned from LYS as well as the GGM, then show us some evidence.
All the other stuff are just red herrings you throw at us to to side track the main issue.
There is no need to prove Chan Heung is the sole founder of CLF because it is an accepted historical fact and it is recorded in the country history book (Yuan Shi), issued by the government.
So the ball is in your court, otherwise stop making up your own history. It is not something that you believed in and it becomes true.
XJ
I'm kung fu..and so can u
He could come up with evidence that would disprove the Chan Family version. But what evidence does Chan Family have that proves their version? I don't think anyone has any hard evidence either way and so this conversation (which is the same one that peeps have been having since 2001) is purely political as no one has any evidence either way that isn't tainted by some political motivation (and when I say political I don't mean Barack and Billary.)
EO
Last edited by Eric Olson; 05-15-2008 at 11:03 AM.
Registered User
The government of any sort generally get their information from the people, then they checked it with their historians before putting them on record. China is well-known for her ecord takings by the authorities.
I'm kung fu..and so can u
2001 called....it wants its thread back:
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/foru...een+grass+monk
Registered User
There is a text book for the sports and wushu historians called "The History of Guangong Martial Arts" and it gave the governemnt version of what is considered to be accurate and true as far as primary sources are concerned. In the book, Chan Heung is acknowledged as the sole founder of CLF. What would be the Chinese government's political motivation, if there is one?He could come up with evidence that would disprove the Chan Family version. But what evidence does Chan Family have that proves their version? I don't think anyone has any hard evidence either way and so this conversation (which is the same one that peeps have been having since 1999) is purely political as no one has any evidence either way that isn't tainted by some political motivation (and when I say political I don't mean Barack and Billary.)
EO
The answer is none. IIt is just a fact Chan Heung is the founder of CLF.
I'm kung fu..and so can u
And governments aren't political?
EO
Registered User
Where is the politics in this one? Why would it be more advantageous for the present Chinese government to back Chan Heung as the founder and not Jeung Yim?
Last edited by extrajoseph; 05-15-2008 at 11:17 AM.
Troll Slayer
Sure, sometimes they are. But the obvious question (or challenge) would be to state what the agenda/angel is.
Here is an example of government bias in martial arts history. Lama Pai is descended from a "non chinese"/"non han" part of what is now China and from non Han ethnicities mostly. OK, making matters worse, it is associated with XiZhang (Tibet). So when the government issued a history of southern styles they "re wrote" the history of Lama and made Dat Mo in Shaolin teh founder. No, I joke you not!
WHY? Obvious. To make Lama "Chinese", to link it to "Shaolin" (to booster that tourist trap!), to link it to the "gung ren" who are "han", etc etc
But in the case of CLF, what political agenda is served by saying one Han chinese of correct social class founded it over another Han Chinese of correct social class??
Chan Tai San Book at https://www.createspace.com/4891253
Registered User
Hello:
Some question for hskwarriors;
GM Yuen Hai born around 1821 ?
GM Jeong Yim born 1824 ?
GM Yuen Hai meet GM Jeong Yim around 1840, when he turned 18 and GM Jeong Yim 16 ?
But in this time GM Jeong Yim arenīt GM Chan Heung student ?
If GM Lau Bun born in 1891 and first learnt Hung Gar, how old was GM Lau Bun when meet GM Yuen Hai ? 15, 16, 20.... and then How old was GM Yuen Hai 85, 86, 90...
Source dates; websites from hskwarriors
周洪龍 金山鴻勝武舘 - 鴻勝佛家正宗
actually that was from some of my early writing while we were figuring out the dates. yuen hai was a senior student who started at about the age of 18 according to ggm jew leong. i based that writing on the 10 year gap idea. but i was incorrect about yuen hai's supposed birth date. never got around to correcting it since im working on my book.
Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
Bruh we thought you knew better
when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better
Posting Permissions
