Why does Black Flag history keep changing?

[t_niehoff]

Actually, this thread was about Black Flag history.

It was Terence that made it about HFY.

The parallels between Black Flag and HFY are obvious.

So what if I brought up HFY? If HFY something that can't be talked about?

You guys are so blind that you can't evensee the big picture -- look at all your posts: they're nothing substantive. You guys don't offer-- because you can'toffer-- any evidence to support HFY "history."

Prove with independently verifiable evidence one HFY practitioner existed who predated Garrett. ONE. TheSecret Societies weresupposedto be training aHFY army to overthrow the Qing, right? So there should have been hundreds orthousands of HFY practitioners. There would have been moreHFY praactitioners than any other branch of WCK! Yet, you can'tprove ONE. You can p1ss and moan and call people names and subscribe all kinds of evil motives to people, but the fact remains thatyou can't produce that evidence. And all the p1ssing and moaining,calling people names, subscribing evil motives, etc. does is prove you can't produce any evidence and it showsyou are desperately trying to distract peoplefrom seeing that.

The Yip Man signatures are there for all to see. No one is making them up. If you say luk sao wasn't created by YKS (even though it doesn't appear in any WCK lienages before YKS and Sum said he was there when it happened), then simply show a known branch ofWCK that was using the platform before YKS. Refute the evidence. But you can't. If you think someone other branch was calling their first form "little idea" and second from"bridge seeking" or knife form baat jaam doh before Yip Manchanged their names, then show it. Refute it with evidence. But you can't. And on and on.

The FACT remains that you guys can't show HFY existed prior to Garrett. The FACT rremains you can't explain how all these Yip signatures -- things either created by Yip or created contemporarily and adopted by Yip -- arein HFY when it is supposed to be older than Yip Man WCK.

It's simple, you can either produce the evidence or you can't. You can all huff and puff, but inthe end it boils down to you can either produce the evidence or you can't.

And we all know you can't.

[t_niehoff]

Simple. They either aren't "throughout HFY" or they are not signatures that are unique to Yip Man.

Does HFY call it's first form "siu NIM tao" (little idea" or not? YM signature.

Does HFY call it's second form "bridge seeking" or not? YM signature.

Does HFYcall its knife form baat jaam doh or not? YM signature?

Does HFY have inside huen saos to end the movment in the forms or not? YM signatures.

Does HFY use the fak sao in its SNT or not? YM signature.

Does HFY have the dan chi sao exercise or not? YM signature.

DoesHFY haveluk sao or not? HFY signature.

Does HFY open the dummy with the jong sao to neck pulling hand or not? YM signature.

And there are others.

For example, I highlighted the difference in the two chi sau training platforms from Yip Man to HFY.

That there are differneces doesn't mean anything-- I can take a drill from someoene and perform it differently, but the base drill is stll there.

Yet you and Robert keep pointing to "Luk Sau" as a signature of Yip Man. This signature is not "throughout" HFY despite all the windbag responses to the contrary. HFY uses 6 gate stances, structured inner and outer hands, and kiu sau as a basis of the platform. This kiu sau is "thoughout" the SNT form.

Sure, fine. That there are NOW other signatures doesn't mean that the Yip Man signatures aren't still there too. Lots ofYM WCK people havemade changes totheir forms, their drills, etc. yet we can see the commonalities that come from Yip. Quite frankly,you don't seem tounderstand what a signature is.

Get a clue - the "signature" is different. Duh. Why is this so difficult to comprehend for some people? Oh, I know - you have an agenda. This distorts rational logic and clear facts.

You don' tunderstand what asignature is. I'vetold you -- one signature is Yip Man changed the name of the first form to "little idea". Before that, no one in the WCK world called their first form "little idea." THAT is a YM signature -- it is technoliogy created by Yip. Like the luk sao, like the dan chi sao, etc.

What's another signature you say is Yip Man? Oh, right - calling the first form SNT as opposed to SLT. What's the proof this is a signature? 2 or 3 lineages from mainland China that call their first form SLT? That's about as shaky of a substantiated proof as I've seen.

No, the evidence is that EVERY SINGLE BRANCH OF WCK WITH A FIRST FORM THAT CAN BE PROVED TO PREDATE YIP USES SIU LIEN TAO. And that the people on mainland, like Sum, were aware of Yip's change.

Here's a thought. HFY calls it SNT and it's a "different" mainland China branch of WCK. Why is it "different"? Because Wang Ming / Wang Ting did not live anywhere around Yip Man and did not study kung fu with him.

So you are using a myth -- a story that you can prove as true -- as evidence? Prove Wang Ming and Wang Ting existed and practiced WCK. You can't. So you are using a fable as evidence.

And, we are not talkingone signature, but multiple signatures and the chancesof two people independetly creating the same numerous signatures is astronomical.

You say those 2 people were imaginary and Garrett Gee "made up" HFY. I say and just about anyone with a pulse and a brain who has taken the time to investigate it say that the evidence of the system itself makes it completely ludicrous that someone could make it all up.

If HFY predates GArrett, then produce a single person who practiced HFY (so taht we can independently verify it). One. That's the only evidence that is meaningful. Why is it everyone in the WCK world can prove their lineage except HYF?

And here's your logical flaw. On one hand you say he "made it up". Yet on another hand you argue that "it's all Yip Man based". The two arguments are mutually exclusive. If you tried that tactic in a courtroom your case would get blown out of the water.

Try and follow the logic:

There is no sound evidence that HFY existed prior to Garrett (other than stories that come from Garrett). We can't find a single HFY practitioner thatpredates Garrett. And, not only that, but since the story goesthat the Sedcret Societies were building a HFY army, we should expect to find tons ofthem, in fact there should bemore HFY practitioners than any other branch (they weren't building an army).

And, when we examine HFY's currciulum,we find all kinds of YM signatures, markers which were developed in the early to mid 1900s.

That in itself leads to one conclusion.

Then add that the HFY forms are iin choreography almost identical to Cheung's TWC forms (and if you disagree, just put up a video of your first, second, and dummy forms and let people judge for themselves).

That is why people say you guys are "talking out your @ss" and "talking out of both sides of your mouth". You are presenting two different premises about HFY that are mutually exclusive.

They're not mutually exclusive at all. HFY did not exist before Garrett, so it did not exist before Yip. Yip created these signatures, Garrett took them after Yip created them and put them into his system.

And when people get down to questioning your motives on why on this as the behavior makes no sense, your defensive response is to call them "ad hominem attacks".

I don't need ad hominem attacks. Your logic is flawed, you're presenting two mutually exclusive premises, and neither one of them holds any water with evidence that's readily available.

In other words, you're talking out your @ss.

You "don't need ad hominem attacks" but you are using them too. Apparently your logic ins't toodeveloped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Questioing motives is an ad hominem attack.

[duende]

Terence,

It is obvious that you have made up your mind. But these signatures are based on your subjective experience. I've already pointed out how your logic is flawed. You are naming WING CHUN SIGNATURES not YM signatures.

You have not been able to answer any of my questions except respond with more unfounded accusations.

Does HFY call it's first form "siu NIM tao" (little idea" or not? YM signature.

We have both. They are part of what is called two-track learning. A WC SIGNATURE!

Does HFY call it's second form "bridge seeking" or not? YM signature.

No we call it CHUM KIU SINKING THE BRIDGE. "Seeking" ties into our "intercepting" which would fall into our Jit Kiu.

Incidentally, the concepts of "seeking", "intercepting", and "sinking" are expressed in our Chum Kiu form. Along with 6-gate footwork and others.

For WC practitioners who didn't have the time to learn all the WC forms, we have Saam Jin Bo and Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin to replace CK. Which as far as logic-flow is concerned... is another example of two-track learning.

Does HFYcall its knife form baat jaam doh

We have a butterfly knife form, as does Chi Sim. Sometimes we use terms that are
more common with HK/YM so as to enable better communication.

read
http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/me...rflyknives.php

Does HFY have inside huen saos to end the movment in the forms or not? YM signatures.

Again.. we have both. This is not a YM signature, but actually a WC signature. If you thought about the questions I posed to you instead of simply ignored them YOU might see the bigger picture.

Instead for you, the earth is flat, and essentially YM created Wing Chun.

Does HFY use the fak sao in its SNT or not? YM signature.

We have three FUT SAU's. (BUDDA HANDS) FAK is just how the term "sounds". We do not use that term.

Again, this is a WING CHUN SIGNATURE

Does HFY have the dan chi sao exercise or not? YM signature.

Dan Chi Sau is just a variant of Chi Sao. You can do single, double, crossing. The purpose of chi sao is not single or two arms. It is engagement.

Do we engage like Yip Man? Do we start our Chi Sau from a fixed position??

NO

Do we have Tan Bong Fook in our system? Yes.

You are calling drills signatures here. Anyone can make up drills... these do not make a signature

DoesHFY haveluk sao or not? HFY signature.

No we don't do Luk Sau. We can roll with other WC families for the sake of rolling, but we don't teach or put any merit in Luk Sau. We do have our own Reference point chi sau, Gee Ng Kiu Chi Sau, and many others, but no Luk Sau.

That there are differneces doesn't mean anything-- I can take a drill from someoene and perform it differently, but the base drill is stll there.

Now you are thinking. But the base drill is meaningless with out the bass WC Structure, Concepts, and principles.

Look at how these are express, then you will start understanding TRUE signatures

Sure, fine. That there are NOW other signatures doesn't mean that the Yip Man signatures aren't still there too. Lots ofYM WCK people havemade changes totheir forms, their drills, etc. yet we can see the commonalities that come from Yip. Quite frankly,you don't seem tounderstand what a signature is.

We can all agree to disagree. In this case, we could simply say that what you consider of importance is not the same as what we consider of importance.

Robert says his pelvis is his WC signature. I would agree that the positioning of the pelvis and how it aligns with rooting, and connecting the upper to lower body most definitely is a WC signature.

If both our views of this "pelvis WC signature" over-lap, does that mean we stole it from each other? Or that both of us have reached similar understandings? (Btw, I am using his picture on the cover of Complete WC for reference here.)

Because if that's the case, you'd better also tell Alan Orr that I also use the snowplow analogy when I instruct WC. And it was just a coincidence I noticed when I caught a bit of one his vids on youtube. I'm sure other WC'rs use the same analogy too.

But is using the "snowplow" term now a Alan term? Or is it an Alex term???

So you are using a myth -- a story that you can prove as true -- as evidence? Prove Wang Ming and Wang Ting existed and practiced WCK. You can't. So you are using a fable as evidence.

As I mentioned months ago, we are working on releasing an article that will answer all these questions and more.

And, we are not talkingone signature, but multiple signatures and the chancesof two people independetly creating the same numerous signatures is astronomical.

Two people didn't create Wing Chun. Who's talking about myths now??

If HFY predates GArrett, then produce a single person who practiced HFY (so taht we can independently verify it). One. That's the only evidence that is meaningful. Why is it everyone in the WCK world can prove their lineage except HYF?

We have. We just don't answer to you.

Try and follow the logic:

There is no sound evidence that HFY existed prior to Garrett (other than stories that come from Garrett). We can't find a single HFY practitioner thatpredates Garrett. And, not only that, but since the story goesthat the Sedcret Societies were building a HFY army, we should expect to find tons ofthem, in fact there should bemore HFY practitioners than any other branch (they weren't building an army).

This is your logic based on your assumptions of our history. You've taken the ball and ran with off with it. But unfortunately you don't know what you are talking about here, so no wonder you've come up with these wild conclusions. However as I mentioned years ago, system wasn't taught to everyone due to lack of time. San Sau was.

And, when we examine HFY's currciulum,we find all kinds of YM signatures, markers which were developed in the early to mid 1900s.

WC was not developed in the mid 1900s.

Then add that the HFY forms are iin choreography almost identical to Cheung's TWC forms (and if you disagree, just put up a video of your first, second, and dummy forms and let people judge for themselves).

This only prove my point, not yours. YM's signature is fleeting at best. Explain TWC, and then you'll have some true understanding. But you can't. You've too many attachments. This is your loss.

They're not mutually exclusive at all. HFY did not exist before Garrett, so it did not exist before Yip. Yip created these signatures, Garrett took them after Yip created them and put them into his system.

More attachments. And more assumptions based on them.

This is your conclusion. Fine. Go pat yourself on the back.

However, what you have Terence is essentially a close-minded and lack of understanding of what really is WC.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Wing Chun History? An alternative viewpoint
by David Peterson


"Far from being the criminal groups which the Australian and world media are fond of portraying, the Triads were secret organizations formed to unite the Chinese against a common enemy. Such was the case in the 1890's when the Boxer Movement swept across northern China, a rebellion organised by secret societies whose aim was the expulsion of the foreign invaders from Chinese soil.

Many of the modern Triads are legitimate groups whose aim is to help members of their own Chinese communities around the world...."


***NOT a convincing argument whatsoever.

Do you know the origin of the word MAFIA?

Morte a Francais, Italia allemande.

M A F I A


And what this translates into is: "Death (morte) to (a) the French (Francais), Italy (Italia) forever (allemande).


The French had invaded Sicily and tried to take the island away from Italy...and this was the battle cry of various Sicilian FAMILIES that took up arms to fight and expel the French.

Which they succeeded in doing - along with the Italian army.

So the MAFIA started out as a patriotic and benevolent group of Sicilian families (and extended families) that was a secret organization using military means in order to fight in a just cause.

Does this sound familiar?

[duende]

Thanks for the history lesson Victor.

Very good point!

[Firehawk4]

Tell us more about the Saam Jin Bo and Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin ? How are these different than Chum Kiu ? Is there any relation of these forms to Southern Mantis s Som Bo Gin ?

[chusauli]

Actually, David Petersen's statement, "Many of the modern Triads are legitimate groups whose aim is to help members of their own Chinese communities around the world...." is not quite true.

It would be that "many modern Hui (Associations) are legitimate groups whose aim is to help members of their own Chinese communities around the world...."

"Triads" is not a good word to choose here. A quick look at the definition or google of the word "Triad" and it is linked with organized crime.

Of course, it is a bit dependent upon how you define the word "help"! LOL!

[chusauli]

Tell us more about the Saam Jin Bo and Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin ? How are these different than Chum Kiu ? Is there any relation of these forms to Southern Mantis s Som Bo Gin ?

And is it related to Fujian White Crane "Saam Jin", aka"Sanchin" or "Saam Chien" or "San Zhan" meaning "3 Battles/Conflicts"?

[duende]

Actually, David Petersen's statement, "Many of the modern Triads are legitimate groups whose aim is to help members of their own Chinese communities around the world...." is not quite true.

It would be that "many modern Hui (Associations) are legitimate groups whose aim is to help members of their own Chinese communities around the world...."

"Triads" is not a good word to choose here. A quick look at the definition or google of the word "Triad" and it is linked with organized crime.

Of course, it is a bit dependent upon how you define the word "help"! LOL!

I think David Peterson knew exactly what he was writing.

It is more a point of semantics. Same meanings/references, just different associations (sorry for the pun) due to the perspective of time.

Although I do agree with you that today the term "triad" has typically more of a negative association/connotation.

[duende]

Tell us more about the Saam Jin Bo and Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin ? How are these different than Chum Kiu ? Is there any relation of these forms to Southern Mantis s Som Bo Gin ?

Hi Firehawk.

Nice to hear from you.

Bai Jong Baat Bo Gin, is a drill/form that teaches the WC practitioner how to establish facing in 8 directions. (ie BAI JONG) It represents the natural progression from 4-gate Tin Yan Dei body/reference points in SNT/SLT to 6-gate Tin Yan Dei body/reference points. While maintaining a Deui Ying facing.

Saam Jin Bo, is another drill/form that then teaches the WC practitioner how to implement and set-up various 6-gate attack/defense (kicking/trapping/intercepting footwork)

These are both drills that we do once the student is ready for Chum Kiu level skill-wise. As they teach the concept that it is "how you get there" and strategy that determines the name of the footwork positioning or stance. And not simply the shape of stance itself. As all our footwork is derived essentially from one WC stance.

While I am aware that there exist similarly named drills in other Southern TCMAs, they are not the same drills. Although they possibly might share some over-lapping concepts, I'd need to study them more to know that.

Btw... there exist many similarities in concepts between the southern fist TCMA's. One just has to look at them with an open mind.

[chusauli]

Guys,

I really don't care if HFY is fake or not or can prove its lineage. Only one man can really say and he doesn't want to. None of the HFY students can really say anything with authority on HFY without GG's approval. Of course, if the martial world wants to scrutinize and look more closely at an unknown system that purports a longer older history with modern signatures, inquiry is the norm, and should be expected.

I read the article Alex linked. I would like to add something.

The Yip Man signature is to call the knives and set Baat Jaam Dao (Bot Jaam Doh or however one wants to romanize it), in English, it is the Eight Slash Knives. In China, the knives are called Yee Ji Dao (Character Two Knives) or Yee Jee Kim Yeung Dit Ming Do (Parallel Shaped Groin Clamping Life-Taking Knives).

The use of the more common with HK/Yip Man term, in this case, is causing confusion, as opposed to better communication. Perhaps there is a lot of vagueness in choices of terms, deliberate or not, and this would lead to confusion (deliberate or not). Of course, objective verification is the means to rectify anything like this.

And with regards to staring at my a$$ or <gasp> pelvis (someone coming out of the closet?), I do not have just a WCK signature. I particularly thrust my pelvis forward just like in lovemaking when I issue force throughout all of my sets, whereas in most WCK systems, they remain stationary while doing all of their sets. This is my trademark and the ARC (A Robert Chu) signature and taught and practiced this before I met Andreas Hoffman and even saw the Chi Sim WCK. This is what my Sifu, Hawkins Cheung taught me, and I eventually developed more from it. My WCK students know exactly what I do, and its there in plain sight. Also, Yip Man did the same, as Hawkins Cheung learned it from Yip Man. And it is quite evident from Alex's posting of Bruce and Yip Man's pics:

http://www.phoenixwingchun.com/bruce-lee-yip-man-b.jpg

See how easy this is? 3 generations and we can see the same use of the pelvis, but each generation emphasizes a little differently in teaching methodology and curriculum.

Also, WCK is really descended from the kama sutra, and sanjuro_ronin was right on the money with Adrianna Lima's pics.

If you guys want to argue more or do more ad hominen attacks, that's up to you. I'm outta here.

With regards to tomorrow being Father's Day, I hope all you fellow dads have a good, well deserved day!

[duende]

I read the article Alex linked. I would like to add something.

The Yip Man signature is to call the knives and set Baat Jaam Dao (Bot Jaam Doh or however one wants to romanize it), in English, it is the Eight Slash Knives. In China, the knives are called Yee Ji Dao (Character Two Knives) or Yee Jee Kim Yeung Dit Ming Do (Parallel Shaped Groin Clamping Life-Taking Knives).

The use of the more common with HK/Yip Man term, in this case, is causing confusion, as opposed to better communication. Perhaps there is a lot of vagueness in choices of terms, deliberate or not, and this would lead to confusion (deliberate or not). Of course, objective verification is the means to rectify anything like this.

The article I linked was written by Benny and Richard from their learning experiences of HFY. As you mentioned none of us speak for HFY. I would say that in some of the articles and even in MKF they resorted sometimes to using terminology that was from their past Moy Yat experiences. Nobody's perfect.

And with regards to staring at my a$$ or <gasp> pelvis (someone coming out of the closet?), I do not have just a WCK signature. I particularly thrust my pelvis forward just like in lovemaking when I issue force throughout all of my sets, whereas in most WCK systems, they remain stationary while doing all of their sets. This is my trademark and the ARC (A Robert Chu) signature and taught and practiced this before I met Andreas Hoffman and even saw the Chi Sim WCK. This is what my Sifu, Hawkins Cheung taught me, and I eventually developed more from it. My WCK students know exactly what I do, and its there in plain sight. Also, Yip Man did the same, as Hawkins Cheung learned it from Yip Man. And it is quite evident from Alex's posting of Bruce and Yip Man's pics:

http://www.phoenixwingchun.com/bruce-lee-yip-man-b.jpg

See how easy this is? 3 generations and we can see the same use of the pelvis, but each generation emphasizes a little differently in teaching methodology and curriculum.

Also, WCK is really descended from the kama sutra, and sanjuro_ronin was right on the money with Adrianna Lima's pics.

If you guys want to argue more or do more ad hominen attacks, that's up to you. I'm outta here.

With regards to tomorrow being Father's Day, I hope all you fellow dads have a good, well deserved day!

My post was not at all meant as an attack on you. But merely to give outline real WC signatures.

And btw... the Yip Man photo was chosen to illustrate a WC body signature.

[Tensei85]

With regards to tomorrow being Father's Day, I hope all you fellow dads have a good, well deserved day!

Have a great Fathers Day everyone as well

[eomonroe00]

god bless fathers day and all yip man wing chun, the only real wing chun

[Tensei85]

god bless fathers day and all yip man wing chun, the only real wing chun

Ahhh! you just had to say that huh?

lol