History of WCK: Tan Sau Ng

[JPinAZ]

I copied my latestest posts from another thread regarding Tan Sau Ng, his role in WCK's proliferation and how his name came about to this new thread to continue discussion with Lee Chiang Po.
Any opinions or comments are welcome!

Here is some feedback from a recent workshop regarding our understanding of Tan Sao Ng based on Hung Fa Yi's history regarding his connections to WCK, as well as his involvment in both the Red Boat Society (and thru Wong Wah Bo) and Boxer Society (and thru Hung Gun Biu):

http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread....0819#post20819
http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread....0792#post20792

A more in-depth write-up on Hung Fa Yi's position on Red Boat/Hung Gun Boxer Society and connection with Tan Sau Ng:
http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread....0904#post20904

Technical information regarding the "5 Tan Saus" of Tan Sau Ng.

As far as HFY's history regarding Taan Sau Ng, the reason for '5' in his name was in reference to how he could describe/represent all of the primary WC concepts/principles through use of his (5) taan saus.

In HFY WCK, we have a whole training platform focusing specifically on these 5 taan saus, which are further divided into 3 taan 'saus' (1 for centerline, 2 for Shoulder/5-line), and 2 that are actually tan 'kius' (for inner/outer gate ranges). Depending on application, these '5 taan saus' express the following main concepts:
Centerline
Half point & 2-line defense concepts
Box & Gate theories
Doi ying/joi ying energy concepts
And in general, the represnt HFY's Time/Space/Energy concept.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just a quick "FYI":
For something to be viewed as historical it must be verified by multiple attestations.
Which should mean multiple independent sources.
Anecdotal "history" is just that and nothing more.
Opinions and "stories" must be verified before one views them as historical.
And even then when some evidence is accepted as historical that does NOT make it correct, it just means that it has been collaborated with another independent source.
An example would be:
Source A) states that TSN was part of the Red Boat society but this source is of the TSN lineage and as such has a vested interest in claiming such.
Source B) confirms this and source B) is independent and has no vested interest ( a police document that shows the names of those that belong to the RD soceity for example).
What you now have is one bias source and one independent source that verifies it.
BUT all that does is identify A person named TSN that is mentioned as a member of the RB society, it does NOT collaborate any other part of the story.

[Vajramusti]

Just a quick "FYI":
For something to be viewed as historical it must be verified by multiple attestations.
Which should mean multiple independent sources.
Anecdotal "history" is just that and nothing more.
Opinions and "stories" must be verified before one views them as historical.
And even then when some evidence is accepted as historical that does NOT make it correct, it just means that it has been collaborated with another independent source.
An example would be:
Source A) states that TSN was part of the Red Boat society but this source is of the TSN lineage and as such has a vested interest in claiming such.
Source B) confirms this and source B) is independent and has no vested interest ( a police document that shows the names of those that belong to the RD soceity for example).
What you now have is one bias source and one independent source that verifies it.
BUT all that does is identify A person named TSN that is mentioned as a member of the RB society, it does NOT collaborate any other part of the story.

------------------------------------------------------

Good points.

[sanjuro_ronin]

------------------------------------------------------

Good points.

Thanks Joy.
Personally I have never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA, perhaps because I know how "loose" many people are with their views of history of their own systems and how much gray area there truly is in EVERY MA system.
Also because what has been done before has nothing to do with what is being done now ( or lacktherof).
However I do know that for some this stuff is very important but I think that if it is that important then that it must be researched in the correct way.

[Vajramusti]

Thanks Joy.
Personally I have never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA, perhaps because I know how "loose" many people are with their views of history of their own systems and how much gray area there truly is in EVERY MA system.
Also because what has been done before has nothing to do with what is being done now ( or lacktherof).
However I do know that for some this stuff is very important but I think that if it is that important then that it must be researched in the correct way.

-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Sanjuro-Martial arts histories are notoriously unreliable specially when put out as marketing devices.

Douglas Wile's work on taichi history is a notable exception.

Oral history for purposes of pointing out something in an art can help with insights for students on what a teacher is thinking or thought.

History is not science but still there are standards in historical research- plus there are blind peer review requirements.

Not everything has to pass the tests of historical scholarship..for enjoyment or learning some desired skills.. But the search for legitimacy and acceptance often is a driving force in the making of many historical claims...specially in kung fu.

joy

[sanjuro_ronin]

-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Sanjuro-Martial arts histories are notoriously unreliable specially when put out as marketing devices.

Douglas Wile's work on taichi history is a notable exception.

Oral history for purposes of pointing out something in an art can help with insights for students on what a teacher is thinking or thought.

History is not science but still there are standards in historical research- plus there are blind peer review requirements.

Not everything has to pass the tests of historical scholarship..for enjoyment or learning some desired skills.. But the search for legitimacy and acceptance often is a driving force in the making of many historical claims...specially in kung fu.

joy

Agreed my friend

[Wayfaring]

-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Sanjuro-Martial arts histories are notoriously unreliable specially when put out as marketing devices.

Douglas Wile's work on taichi history is a notable exception.

Oral history for purposes of pointing out something in an art can help with insights for students on what a teacher is thinking or thought.

History is not science but still there are standards in historical research- plus there are blind peer review requirements.

Not everything has to pass the tests of historical scholarship..for enjoyment or learning some desired skills.. But the search for legitimacy and acceptance often is a driving force in the making of many historical claims...specially in kung fu.

joy

You guys are both something else, especially considering there is ABOUT ZERO material today published on the history of WCK that passes stringent historical research requirements.

HFY has oral tradition and a few artifacts.

Is it possible to enjoy the tradition as a story and interesting perspective without being ********s?

I mean the nun story is a history story told and retold. It's an interesting perspective too. But we don't see threads on that replete with visits from Bildad and Zophar with congratulatory slaps on the back due to their stimulating educational critical talents.

[Fa Xing]

Thanks Joy.
Personally I have never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA, perhaps because I know how "loose" many people are with their views of history of their own systems and how much gray area there truly is in EVERY MA system.
Also because what has been done before has nothing to do with what is being done now ( or lacktherof).
However I do know that for some this stuff is very important but I think that if it is that important then that it must be researched in the correct way.

This is so true, even in JKD there is deviation and it's only been around for less than 50 years and a few of Bruce's original students are still around. Luckily we are able to get multiple accounts to get a general sense of JKD history, but I can't imagine doing that for something that may or may not have happened over 200 years ago.

[kentchang]

Originally Posted by Lee Chiang Bo
If I remember correctly, My dad was born in 1880. He was old when I came along. In 1965 he died from diabetes at 85 years old. He was a Boxer in 1900 and barely missed the headsman. Later he fled the Canton area and went to Hong Kong in 49 to escape the Communists. From there he came to the states. He told me that he learned Hung Fa from ex-soldiers. They were working members of a tong gang. The stuff I related might or might not have been true, but it does make sense to me at least. These things he told me. Now I am old. Or getting old.

Originally Posted by Savi
I'm intrigued, Lee Chiang Po! From what I have learned of my kung fu family's history our 4th generation inheritor Hung Gun Biu Tong Zyu was the leader of the Hung Gun Wui during the mid 1850's. According to our history, he taught combat methods to his men which at the time he referred to as Hung Fa Kuen. During the 1870's, upon his retirement he bestowed the name of his family art, Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen.

After reading this thread I found some very interesting similarities from these non Yip Man WCK lineages. Both independently reported that their WCK lineages gave credit to Hung Fa Boxing. Specifically with the references about Hung Fa and WCK, these parallel accounts of wing chun history tend to be much more credible. No doubt these research sources can be considered more genuine for the project into the WCK history of the Red Flower Boxer society and Tan Sao Ng.