William Cheung's TWC

[JPinAZ]

Actually, he has said he's seen HFY - some clips of GM Gee to be exact (which is kinda funny, I didn't know any existed). And then also said he has no idea of HFY. But then he also said say that what victor is describing does indeed seem like Hung Fa Yi to him.

LCP - "I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi"

Not a big deal really, but it did get a little confusing to me...

[canglong]

The distinguishing line being drawn being the existence of noticeable subtle differences gained through actual hands on experience as opposed to a lack thereof.

Originally posted by anerlich
Sorry, but it is always possible to remark on the distinctions - and similarities - between your way of doing something and someone else's way of doing it.

Sure everyone is entitled to and will usually formulate an opinion the point again being although it may not be required experience is always helpful in making a more informed opinion.

Originally posted by Lee Chiang Po
I would not know traditional from whatever as I am not familiar with this lineage thing so much.....I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi. ...as I can tell you nothing about my own lineage. I call it Chiang Lee Wing Chun. Lineage aside, from what I have been able to determine so far is that the principals of Hung Fa are the same in most all the lineages I have been able to examine.

So Chiang admits to having no experience with TWC or Hung Fa Yi because he is unware of any known connection between Hung Fa Yi and what he calls Hung Fa.

Originally posted by anerlich
Sorry, but it is always possible to remark on the distinctions - and similarities - between your way of doing something and someone else's way of doing it. and to evaluate whether, say, TWC and HFY are more similar than say, TWC and YKS. part of the getting of wisdom is the ability to percieve fine distinctions.

Again in these cases hands on experience can lead to a more informed opinion. It is a fact that there are subtle differences that exit that might or might not even be visible to a long time practitioner without experience in a particular branch of wing chun.

The point was not to focus on what Chiang is doing as different or the same the point again was that because he mentioned he had no experience with either TWC or HFY that his comparison of the 2 "I want to say that traditional wingchun looks and acts pretty much to me like Hung Fa Yi." - Chiang lacking experience may or may not have much merit and the best way to increase the chance of being correct with his analysis is for him or anyone else making such comparisons is to gain that experience.

[Ultimatewingchun]

How about we do this, guys...

ignore the HFY posse.

If they've got a problem with the fact that so many other wing chun people see a major similarity between HFY and TWC - that's their problem.

No longer to be our problem.

And move on...

[KPM]

How about we do this, guys...

ignore the HFY posse.

If they've got a problem with the fact that so many other wing chun people see a major similarity between HFY and TWC - that's their problem.

No longer to be our problem.

And move on...

Good advice. Because I've seen Garrett Gee in action...in person. And I've seen and studied with John Clayton...in person. I'm one of those "many" that see a definite similarity between HFY and TWC that goes beyond that fact that both are Wing Chun systems.

[canglong]

Victor,
It's obvious you have a problem with the fact that so many respected TWC practitioners that have had the opportunity to practice and experience TWC and HFY both actually do find the 2 to be very different. So why don't you take your own advice and ignore the conversations you want to ignore and let the other adults around here decide and discuss what they want while you move on.

Have a nice day

[Ultimatewingchun]

And John Clayton is a very good representative of what TWC looks like, I might add...having known John some 25 years now. He's one of William Cheung's best students.

Enough said.

[canglong]

Originally posted by KPM
Good advice. Because I've seen Garrett Gee in action...in person. And I've seen and studied with John Clayton...in person. I'm one of those "many" that see a definite similarity between HFY and TWC that goes beyond that fact that both are Wing Chun systems.

Anyone that studies different arts but can then only discuss the similarities and not the differences in any meaningful way is only providing insight into the their own short comings and not that of the arts involved in the discussion.

[KPM]

Anyone that studies different arts but can then only discuss the similarities and not the differences in any meaningful way is only providing insight into the their own short comings and not that of the arts involved in the discussion.

That's your opinion. My opinon is that anyone that can't admit to similarities beyond just being Wing Chun.....similarities that seem so apparant to lots of other people.... either has a mental block, something to hide, or an agenda to push. What are you defending? Why not admit that HFY and TWC have similarities beyond most Wing Chun that suggests some kind of link somewhere? No...don't bother to answer. It will just end up being another long pointless thread where nothing is really discussed and no real info is really shared. Sorry! I'm should go back to "ignore" mode now as Victor suggested!

[canglong]

Originally posted by KPM
Why not admit that HFY and TWC have similarities beyond most Wing Chun that suggests some kind of link somewhere?

"Beyond most Wing Chun" is a statement you cannot prove but your ego wont allow you to see the point of trying to address those things of which you are unqualified to determine. While on the other hand its quite easy and simple for me to see that both systems are wing chun and that is the link and anything more at this point would just be speculation.

[KPM]

"Beyond most Wing Chun" is a statement you cannot prove but your ego wont allow you to see the point of trying to address those things of which you are unqualified to determine. While on the other hand its quite easy and simple for me to see that both systems are wing chun and that is the link and anything more at this point would just be speculation.

Yada Yada Yada. Take off your blinders. Officially in ignore mode now!

[Wilson]

Anyone that studies different arts but can then only discuss the similarities and not the differences in any meaningful way is only providing insight into the their own short comings and not that of the arts involved in the discussion.

I've always felt that finding similarities in things tends gets you closer to "truths" than dwelling on differences.

I often use the analogy "spokes on a wheel". We can all start from different places, but our goals should basically be the same.

This applies to everything, not just martial arts.

[JPinAZ]

Here, is this what you're looking for? yes, I also see similarities between HFY and TWC.
And I say 'see' because I've only had hands-on experience in one of them. But sure, I agree, they do have visual similarities. More-so than if you compare say, TWC or HFY to some other branches like YM, kulo, or whatever. Foot work is more similar, some of the stances are more similar. The forms have more things in common that say YM lines or YKS or whatever.

But, to also be honest, when watching TWC video clips, I can also see things done that goes against what is taught in HFY - plain and simple. And I'm talking things in the forms, in the actions, and in the application of the system. And some of these things are glaring differences. Sure, they are probably closer cousins than some others, but counsins don't always come directly from the same parents now do they? But yeah, they are in the same family (duh)
And I'm not saying one is better/worse or anything like that, but for someone to say they are SOO similar, what exactly are they looking at? Some clips and maybe what they saw in a workshop? Even I would say that for me to say how close/simlar they are, I'd have to experience TWC in person - this is common sense!

Now, what started all this? Someone coming on here drawing conclusions without any admitted experience in either system. He's entitled to his opinion, but what is it based on really? Some surface level visual simlarities, and maybe what can be read in a forum or book. Yeah, that can give someone a very general idea, but you have to go much deeper than that. So, sure, 'sees' something, we all can. But what about the opinons of those that have experienced them both for more than an hour or two?

But really, who cares? This whole thing is so funny. 2 wing chun systems look more similar in application than some others and the similarities also make them stand apart from the rest. Great. So what?

[Phil Redmond]

Victor,
It's obvious you have a problem with the fact that so many respected TWC practitioners that have had the opportunity to practice and experience TWC and HFY both actually do find the 2 to be very different. So why don't you take your own advice and ignore the conversations you want to ignore and let the other adults around here decide and discuss what they want while you move on.

Have a nice day

Normally I stay out of the HFY controversy but I'd like to know which "respected TWC practitioners" have practiced both TWC and HFY? I know that Sifu Delroi Flood met with some HFY. Who are the others?

[Ultimatewingchun]

I want to come back to this because I believe that this aspect of TWC is of the utmost importance.

Let me also state from the outset that this is pure "William Cheung" - in that he started watching these points based upon his own fighting and sparring experiences, observations, and analysis - and not because this was part of his kung fu training. And I know that because he himself said so a long time ago in the first magazine article he ever wrote about TWC - back in 1982.

If you focus on the imaginary vertical line running down on your opponent's lead side from his shoulders to the floor - and with particular emphasis upon his lead elbow and his lead knee...

meaning that those two points on the vertical line are the "crucial" points - and then focus exclusively on the lead elbow when a strike or an attempted grab comes from his lead arm...

and on the lead knee when a kick or knee strike comes from his lead side...

you're in the money.

And your peripeheral vision will tell you when to focus on the rear elbow or knee, respectively.

Speaking very personally, now...I would say that of all the things I've learned through the years from William Cheung - and if I could only take ONE THING with me to the desert island - this would be it.

It takes lots of drilling to good at this - but once there - it's well worth it.

Because you can see things coming at you in time to react - even though you didn't know in advance what it would be.

And you can do it at close range, mid range, and long range.

The elbow and the knee will telegraph lots of important information to you: is the strike or kick straight? Is it round? Is it high? Is it low? Is it mid level? Is it an uppercut-type motion? A looping overhanded motion? An axe kick-like motion?

Etc.

Its a superb radar system.

[anerlich]

But really, who cares? This whole thing is so funny. 2 wing chun systems look more similar in application than some others and the similarities also make them stand apart from the rest. Great. So what?

You probably should ask Ned and Tony. They're the ones going to some length to deny what you haven't. I don't have a problem whether the two systems have more or less similarities or differences.

Ned seems to spend his time obsessing over LCP's posts, copying them back and forth between KFO and HFY108, and seeing his inability to find an earlier post as some sort of conspiracy against HFY. That boy needs a chill pill.

$5 Tony goes on at great length with poor logic and hair splitting to deny what you just stated.

I agree, so what if they are similar or different? Talk to your buddies, they're the ones who hijacked this TWC thread, and as Tony alludes, got in the way of a good conversation between adults.