Do all HFY schools teach the same...

[Wayfaring]

Why is it so hard for you to say you don't know the answer to a simple question?

Because the innate good nature of mankind is to help one another while trolling the interwebz.

[Tom Kagan]

As to the question on weapons training first, and when it exactly switched to hands, I don't really know. All I think any of us has is stories or oral tradition history. I would speculate that even by the Red Boat time they might have been doing more hands training first even due to logistics. But that would be a guess only.

I am curious what 'logistics' you would be speculating about which would cause a switch when they still were talking insurgency.

... well, other than the obvious "Kam, you fool! why did the weapons cache float away/get stolen/trade it for magic beans?"

[Wayfaring]

I am curious what 'logistics' you would be speculating about which would cause a switch when they still were talking insurgency.

You may be right. I was thinking as opera troupes they might not have had a whole lot of forged weapons. But they did have the boat poles. And as a secret society that seems to have been insurgency bound, weapons might have been prominent.

Anyway, this is all just a bunch of speculation. And I am not the history buff in the crowd here either.

[LSWCTN1]

what is the big deal with Hung Fa Yi - everybody wants to knock it and i dont understand why!

lets presume for a moment that Garrett Gee lied about the lineage and history, for marketing purposes or whatever. he wouldnt be the first, or the highet profile person to do it now would he?

are his students happy doing what they do? of course they are - they would leave otherwise

it seems to me that people look at his success and envy that - he probably makes a lot of money through his organisation. case in point: Lee Chiang Po who sometimes posts on here - he studies a form of wing chun that nobody has heard of the lineage before, but they never hammer him about his approach or history because he doesnt earn a bucketload of money from it!

surely it doesnt matter about lineage too much - can your teacher make you become a good practitioner? if not, what are you doing with him? if he can then why are you here using your personal bitterness to try to discredit something you know nothing (or very little) about

my instructor said to me last night that students and teachers are like buckets of water: some are crysal clear with nice clean water, some are a little bit soiled and some are just outright mud. why try to involve yourself with the mud and upset the teacher/embarrass him infront of his students/prove his approach (or ethics) to be wrong? all that will happen will be the mud will try to join your crystal clear bucket and soil it. people of the same type will stick together so a teacher with a bad attitude will, more often than not, attract a student with a bad attitude and so on and so forth

so unless you need clean water in your muddy bucket leave the water alone!

[duende]

For those who are sincerely interested....

The question has already been answered. Weapons were taught first originally. As to what "birthed" what... means ichicken or the egg in this case... we can only speculate.

However, we do know that knowledge of weapons most definitely took part into the creation of HFY as a system. It was put together my the Ming Military and the Saolin Monks. How could it not. But again this is not unique to HFYWCKF. I'm sure across the board of MA's you can find instances of this.

Every HFY student who has reached the 3rd level of SLT and learned Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin knows that this footwork/facing/engagement hand drill is based on the pole and spear technology.

Same with Kiu Sau. It's entire engagement strategy is an echo of the pole form.

The whole notion of Heaven Human Earth facing is based on targeting of weapons and body alignment.


For those who are interested in nonsense

You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you.

I don't think Savi will be giving you his address anytime soon. Especially considering your concern for his "needs".

My agenda is to have questions answered on topics I find interesting which can be reasonably discussed on the internet. What's yours?

If your agenda is to have questions answered on topic... then start a new thread. However I for one am pretty over it.

I think the real problem here is that you don't actually know the answers to these questions but aren't willing to simply admit you don't know. If you and JPinAZ prefer to let your personal gremlins give cause to divert this and try and make this subject about me, I'm cool with that, but it won't change anything within you. Duende is at least open to discussion.

Savi is right, if you were truly interested you would have read the link I provided.

He also completed the MY system and is a HFY instructor, so not only does he know the answers to your question but much more.

We all are open to discussion here. But only when it's from a position of mutual respect and comaradery.

Your questions should be directed at all of us who practice WC. Not just HFY. And therefore deserve their own thread.

It amazes me how people here feel like it's there right to demand answers to any questions they like, and then get upset when they are ignored.

[anerlich]

what is the big deal with Hung Fa Yi - everybody wants to knock it and i dont understand why!

There's a lot of history on the list from a few years back. A conflagration of flame wars.

If you read the "Mastering Kung Fu" book, and what it has to say about other versions of WC and other WC historians, that may give some clues as to why some remain rather antagonistic.

[JPinAZ]

Not that I see the same things you are talking about in MKF, but how long ago did that come out, 2003? And really, is being antagonistic going to change anything? Maybe it's time people get over thier little issues and let it go.

[Knifefighter]

And these concepts go beyond just hand fighting and translate well to weapons. And, I assume most WCK is thought to be generally the same (i am only somewhat familiar with MY/YM besides HFY). So, it is also safe to say that training can start anywhere, weapons or hands - the concepts remain.

Fighting with empty hands compared to fighting with weapons is completely different.

As far as which should be taught first, the thing you are most likely to use is what should be taught first and foremost. That's why the military focuses mostly on using firearms and comparatively very little on empty hand training.

[Knifefighter]

- Nothing wrong with giving someone a general martial arts foundation to build off of.

Wouldn't each instructor need to have been trained in almost all forms of MA to be able to teach a general MA course? What, exactly, is taught in these general courses?

[golgo]

Wouldn't each instructor need to have been trained in almost all forms of MA to be able to teach a general MA course? What, exactly, is taught in these general courses?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily think so. In my classes, we are often asked to throw certain types of basic punches/kicks for demonstration & defense purposes - throw an upper-cut, hook, 1-2 jab combination, etc. Sometimes our Sifu gets a bit frustrated when us beginners don't know how to throw these basic punches in a realistic way. Some basic "MA" training may be good idea so that when we are asked to take turns doing a side kick, you know how to do it at a basic level. I feel like a moron anytime I am asked to do almost any type of kick. At this point, I am not really being taught how to kick, but rather how to defend against one, so I am not that worried about it. I would hope that the person kicking me knew what he was doing, so it would more closely resemble what I would encounter in real life or in a competition.

At the same time, I would think these types of basic skills could be taught in a relatively short amount of time.

[Wayfaring]

Fighting with empty hands compared to fighting with weapons is completely different.

As far as which should be taught first, the thing you are most likely to use is what should be taught first and foremost. That's why the military focuses mostly on using firearms and comparatively very little on empty hand training.

So you're agreeing with the current direction of teaching hands first. Why, thank you. That's very kind. It's so rare to get supporting sentiments on forums like this.

[JPinAZ]

Fighting with empty hands compared to fighting with weapons is completely different.

no kidding.. But that still doesn't mean the concepts and principals can't still be aplied, which is what I was talking about..

As far as which should be taught first, the thing you are most likely to use is what should be taught first and foremost. That's why the military focuses mostly on using firearms and comparatively very little on empty hand training.

makes perfect sense, glad we agree. unless you had another point you were making?

[Tom Kagan]

The question has already been answered. Weapons were taught first originally. As to what "birthed" what... means ichicken or the egg in this case... we can only speculate.

This brings me right back to my first post. As knifefighter mentioned, the military concentrates on weapons because that's what is used first. It is, if you will, a "signature" of a military combative program. By inference, the converse is also true - putting weapons last can be looked at as is a signature of a civilian martial program - something used in a time of relative peace.

A quick glance of the Chinese historical timeline from the time where insurgency wished to overthrow the Qing doesn't have much significant events up until Mao. This is why I asked if you could point to the particular events which may have influenced such a drastic change to the HFY training methodology.

If you don't know, that's fine. A little speculation on your part can also be interesting.

I don't think Savi will be giving you his address anytime soon. Especially considering your concern for his "needs".

It's certainly his prerogative to not want to receive 20 dollars.

It amazes me how people here feel like it's there right to demand answers to any questions they like, and then get upset when they are ignored.

This is a HFY thread with questions regarding the variation of teaching which mentioned historical changes. I asked a question regarding it. I haven't been ignored. You provided information. I did read the information in the link you provided. It did not answer my question clearly. I asked a follow up question and you attempted to attempted to clarify.

You speak of respect, that's cool. As I pointed out already before, you seem to be responding with respect to the questions. Others - Savi, JPinAZ - have not. I find your comment I quoted above interesting: the ones who appear to be upset in this thread are not me. Perhaps they are the ones with questions of me they feel I have been ignoring?

[hhe]

"You are in serious need a blow job. If you give me your address, I'll send you 20 bucks towards a hooker for you." from Tom Kagen.

Great example of respect!


"A quick glance of the Chinese historical timeline from the time where insurgency wished to overthrow the Qing doesn't have much significant events up until Mao." from Tom K.

Which first grade Chinese history book did you read?

[duende]

This brings me right back to my first post. As knifefighter mentioned, the military concentrates on weapons because that's what is used first. It is, if you will, a "signature" of a military combative program. By inference, the converse is also true - putting weapons last can be looked at as is a signature of a civilian martial program - something used in a time of relative peace.

A quick glance of the Chinese historical timeline from the time where insurgency wished to overthrow the Qing doesn't have much significant events up until Mao. This is why I asked if you could point to the particular events which may have influenced such a drastic change to the HFY training methodology.

If you don't know, that's fine. A little speculation on your part can also be interesting.

Obviously as I wasn't there so long ago, it is hard to say.

What I do know is that we have abbreviated versions of our forms that could be used to teach weapons or hand training in a short period of time. From my understanding, the teachers of these forms would however have been educated in the full SLT, CK, BG etc...

This gives some more insight but still does not offer any definitive answer.

It's certainly his prerogative to not want to receive 20 dollars.



This is a HFY thread with questions regarding the variation of teaching which mentioned historical changes. I asked a question regarding it. I haven't been ignored. You provided information. I did read the information in the link you provided. It did not answer my question clearly. I asked a follow up question and you attempted to attempted to clarify.

You speak of respect, that's cool. As I pointed out already before, you seem to be responding with respect to the questions. Others - Savi, JPinAZ - have not. I find your comment I quoted above interesting: the ones who appear to be upset in this thread are not me. Perhaps they are the ones with questions of me they feel I have been ignoring?

Come on Tom... you were having a go and you know it. Yeah, it turned into a real conversation, but you can't blame my bro's for giving you a bit of your own medicine.