Siu Lin tau

[JPinAZ]

For past three decades, I do the above investigating and build up DNA data based. It is not history or his-story as my major focus . But finding core dna and building DNA data based is my interest. DNA technology let us see clearly and honest.

That's great - So how many different lines of IpManWC did you personally study over the last 30 years to learn all these different IpMan DNA and put them together?

[KPM]

I think things are much more complicated than that.

---Of course. No analogy is ever perfect, and historical research can be very complicated.

Did Yip Man learn from Leung Bik or not? How can we ever know? This sort of question is repeated thousands of times in wing chun history. We cannot even know something this frequent in time yet we want to know what was going on in the red boat era.

---If we found a letter written by Yip Man to Leung Bik or vice versa, we might know. If Leung Bik's son or one of his students was still alive and someone found him and he said he had seen Yip Man training with Leung Bik personally, we would know. If Leung Bik left a lineage of students that still existed and we could see things that they did that are found in Yip Man's Wing Chun but not in Chan Wah Shun lineage students, we might know. It all depends upon what evidence is still around. Sometimes there is none! Sometimes there may be something to find. That's the nature of historical research.

I do not see how oral or written accounts of wing chun lore can be taken seriously. Even those are cherry picked and interpreted.

---This is true. But most legends have a foundation in fact. When various points in legends from various sources match up, we have a better idea of what the facts might have been.

Hendrik's wing chun DNA is his creation to give his subjective conclusions based on limited cherry picked information weight.

---No, Hendrik can be rather confusing in how he presents his ideas, but I don't think he is making anything up. This whole "DNA" analogy is rather over-done and I think now just leads to more confusion. What Hendrik has done is look at the mechanics and techniques found in various Wing Chun lineages and determined what is common to all of them. This common element suggests a common source and is therefore the "DNA" that Hendrik is looking for. He posts all those things on youtube expecting us to pick up on these same common elements shared by different lineages of Wing Chun. And what he is talking about is a deeper layer then just the fact that all have a SLT, CK, and BG form. Now what accurate "DNA" should consist of may be debatable, and something that Hendrik needs to line out for us better.



What does it matter in the slightest? For example does it matter if Yip Man learned from Leung Bik or not? What does it matter if HFY came from WWB or WWB came from HFY? It changes nothing.

---This is true. It may not matter one whit to a lot of people. It only matters to the people that are interested in such things, and to people who try to use a legend as history to justify there position or what they are doing. "Black Flag" Wing Chun was a total farce, yet presented its "history" as hard fact. HFY had this problem when it went public. Lots of legends were presented as history to give HFY credibility in the market place. Yet no one had ever seen HFY before, and Garrett Gee was the only one known to teach it. There was nothing to back up what HFY said about its past history. That may have changed over time. I'm still waiting for someone here to answer my prior questions.

[Hendrik]

My focus is in red boat era wing chun kuen.
You need to ask sifu Robert Chu to help you, if you like to know Ipman lineages.

That's great - So how many different lines of IpManWC did you personally study over the last 30 years to learn all these different IpMan DNA and put them together?

[KPM]

That's great - So how many different lines of IpManWC did you personally study over the last 30 years to learn all these different IpMan DNA and put them together?

Hendrik hasn't claimed in-depth knowledge of Yip Man lineages, he has been talking about mainland China lineages of Wing Chun. So I'll assume that's what you meant (I may be wrong) and respond from that perspective. In another thread Palmstriker said he could watch someone doing their SLT and know whether it was "real" Yip Man Wing Chun or not. What would be so hard about Hendrik watching other lineages doing their SLT and noting common techniques and body mechanics? How hard would it be to compare notes with a Sifu from another lineage for an afternoon and see how they did things the same or differently? Someone with a good grasp of Wing Chun mechanics wouldn't have to study in-depth with each and every lineage. I'm not trying to defend Hendrik here, just trying to point out the obvious.

[Hendrik]

K,

DNA might be a word some doesn't like but it is real in ancient Chinese martial art.

It is called 拳種 or kuen choong in Cantonese. Or "seed" type of the art. Today, when I brought the term DNA as kuen choong to communicate with say older generation or my sifu generation traditional Chinese martial art and history experts say in Hong Kong. They know exactly what I am talking about. In the west, this term seldom mention.

As in my late sifu era, when he teaches me the sets, since cho family carry different seeds type of tcma, he often caution me on the set I practice has to follow the kuen choong. Otherwise is junk. Many time, when I practice snt with clf type of move, I got hack. My si heng Doing snt with hung gar type , sifu is extremely not happy about.


So, within 拳種 or kuen choong. There is 功種 or Kung choong in Cantonese. Or ＂seed type of the mechanic development. Ie seed of power generation or force handling.
This is one elements within the six core elements of snt .

What Kung choong contribute is that every style has its specific way of develop the body mechanics or power generation or engine.

For example,
the white crane from fujian has its 摔手頓手彈抖or shake bounce process.
The Chen taiji has its 丹田內轉纒��or Dan dien inner rotate reel silk process
These are different process fit their white crane San chin set and Chen taiji set.
While siu nim tau has its 蛇行蛹動六弓 or snake slide worm move six bow process.
Which fit into siu nim tau to support the kuen choong.

So, using the white crane process will not fit and support the siu nim tau set. Same with using Chen taiji process will not fit and support the siu nim tau.


So, these "seed" or DNA as I now using a modern term to called in English. They exist in tcma in the past, to master an art one needs to know these clearly, accurately. Otherwise one cannot develop fully.


Thus, as I says before, it is like to do a doctor degree if one really study these stuffs. The west do need some one to do a doctor thesis to convey these knowledge in the western mind set way from the Chinese culture. This part of Wck needs to be open up and preserve for those who love art. I am not talking fighting and best fighter....etc. But art lover, as those who love Beethoven music and know it inside out.

So, if we want to talk 1850 we better know the kuen choong and Kung choong. Otherwise, we are outside the entry.

So, if we want to develop the sticking or short power of Wck, guess what? Has to rely on these seeds or DNA. That is the 1850 way. Otherwise we cannot develop it with snt.

Seeds Are a field most never touch and fading away in present tcma. I am not claiming to be an expert. But I don't want to lie or keep it for myself on something which do exist.


Thus, history and DNA , for me are just a two faces of a Coin. Knowing DNA will be able to trace root history. Knowing history can help track DNA. But DNA is much more valuable for martial art implementation. History is good for literature .

[JPinAZ]

My focus is in red boat era wing chun kuen.
You need to ask sifu Robert Chu to help you, if you like to know Ipman lineages.

Robert Chu isn't here making all sorts of rediculous claims, like having investigated all the Ip Man lineages to know what is 'real red boat DNA' and what isn't.

Besides that, I didn't say I wanted to know anything other than can you prove that you've really done the research you claim, or do you just gather all this DNA experience in the past 30 years from watching videos? Because if that's hte case, it's no wonder you come off as having no clue what you're tlaking about..

[Hendrik]

I post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendrik
My focus is in red boat era wing chun kuen.
You need to ask sifu Robert Chu to help you, if you like to know Ipman lineages.

Robert is the author of complete wing chun and Ipman Wck decendent. He is the perfect person if you like to ask about Ipman Wck.


As usual, you love to twisting things around , as evidence shows, Thus, there is no need for me to waste my time with you.

Robert Chu isn't here making all sorts of rediculous claims, like having investigated all the Ip Man lineages to know what is 'real red boat DNA' and what isn't.

Besides that, I didn't say I wanted to know anything other than can you prove that you've really done the research you claim, or do you just gather all this DNA experience in the past 30 years from watching videos? Because if that's hte case, it's no wonder you come off as having no clue what you're tlaking about..

[JPinAZ]

Hendrik hasn't claimed in-depth knowledge of Yip Man lineages, he has been talking about mainland China lineages of Wing Chun.

I stand corrected - henrik is saying that he has unlocked the 'wck DNA' for all wc it seems. He even claims now that he can look at any wc lineage and tell who it comes from and who it doesn't come from. He went even further to think he could do it with my own art, even though it's not red boat opera WC!
How can someone do all that and have the holy grail to all things 'red boat WCK' (which Ip Man also is from BTW), and apparently even those that aren't, without having actually studied any of the arts he's judging except for one animal style wc?

So I'll assume that's what you meant (I may be wrong) and respond from that perspective. In another thread Palmstriker said he could watch someone doing their SLT and know whether it was "real" Yip Man Wing Chun or not. What would be so hard about Hendrik watching other lineages doing their SLT and noting common techniques and body mechanics? How hard would it be to compare notes with a Sifu from another lineage for an afternoon and see how they did things the same or differently?

SLT is just a form. You cannot possible understand the inner workings of a system by watching youtube clips of just SNT forms and no hands-on experience or knowledge. The only thing you could compare the other lineages too are the ones you have experience in yourself. And, if you only really have experience in one line like henrik, then that is very limited POV to make all these crazy assumption on.

Maybe you should go back and re-read what Hendrik wrote in the post I pulled my
last quote from. He's now claiming that after 30 years of this DNA voodoo magicry he has found the 'cinderella' as he calls it and "At this point one has the Wck core DNA and the unique DNA of different lineage. These has build up a data bank of DNA"

So you really buy into this nonsense? That he did all this by reading some old scrolls and watching youtube? Is that really how you believe people learn WCK??No offense, but you should be locked up in the same padded room he's sitting in if you do...

Someone with a good grasp of Wing Chun mechanics wouldn't have to study in-depth with each and every lineage. I'm not trying to defend Hendrik here, just trying to point out the obvious.

Sure, someone with good WCK knowledge can do this. Heck, I can take one look at hendricks clips and point out tons of stuff he's doing wrong. Competely wrong. He can't stand straight, has no root, poor posture, no understanding of WC structural positions, etc. But it's all based on my own undertaning of WC thru HFY WC which has very specific forumlas and concepts that let me see that (as well as 1 year moy yat WC). Maybe Hendrick's animal sytle wc isn't worried about such things of structure, root, posture, etc.
So is it really fair of me to judge him based on my own experience and (high) standards? Proably not since I don't have any actual experience in his art.
Well, it works the other way around too
Yet hendrik seems to have unlocked the Holy red boat DNA mombo jumbo cindarella key that allows him to do just that. Good lord.....

[JPinAZ]

I post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hendrik
My focus is in red boat era wing chun kuen.
You need to ask sifu Robert Chu to help you, if you like to know Ipman lineages.

Robert is the author of complete wing chun and Ipman Wck decendent. He is the perfect person if you like to ask about Ipman Wck.

As usual, you love to twisting things around , as evidence shows, Thus, there is no need for me to waste my time with you.

I twisting things? You're the one hiding behind robert and his books when asked very direct questions about your experience in all these art's you seemed to have unlocked 'DNA' on. Rovert hasn't posted on these forums for quite a while - probably for good reasons like this. Neither he, nor his books, has nothing to do with your claims here.

So again, to unlock all this DNA, how many red boat wck arts/lineages have you studied in, if even for a few months, other than your own?

[Hendrik]

Since you ask for it, I refer you to Robert to have a first hand understanding on Ipman lineage. He is the man.

http://wingchungeeks.com/robert-chu-interview/

"A few years after that, I went to Hong Kong to study with Koo Sang. Of course, while I was there I met with Chu Shong Ting, Lo Man Kam in Taiwan, and Wong Shun Leung. Finally around 1987, I contacted Hawkins Cheung and asked if he would do a seminar in New York. He agreed and I really liked what Hawkins taught me." ---- sifu Robert Chu





As for the DNA why are you so stress heard about its existence?

I twisting things? You're the one hiding behind robert and his books when asked very direct questions about your experience in all these art's you seemed to have unlocked 'DNA' on. Rovert hasn't posted on these forums for quite a while - probably for good reasons like this. Neither he, nor his books, has nothing to do with your claims here.

So again, to unlock all this DNA, how many red boat wck arts/lineages have you studied in, if even for a few months, other than your own?

[JPinAZ]

As for the DNA why are you so stress heard about its existence?

Ok, you don't have any experience in these various arts you seem to have unlocked DNA for - your inability to answer by hiding behind robert is proof enough for me. Don't worry, I won't ask again, I have my answer.

And no stress involved - I find this all amussing to no end actually. It's like watching a clown tripping over his own feet at a circus!

[Hendrik]

As a MD. I refer specialist to patient. In this case you ask for Ipman lineage, I refer you to an expert. Read my post above.

As for core DNA of red boat era wing chun kuen they exist and solid as rock, and currently has approval from well known Chinese martial art and history experts. Wait for the news from Asia soon.

As for how you love to think, that is your freedom.

Ok, you don't have any experience in these various arts you seem to have unlocked DNA for - your inability to answer by hiding behind robert is proof enough for me. Don't worry, I won't ask again, I have my answer.

And no stress involved - I find this all amussing to no end actually. It's like watching a clown tripping over his own feet at a circus!

[Paddington]

[...]
Hendrik's wing chun DNA is his creation to give his subjective conclusions based on limited cherry picked information weight.

---No, [I]Hendrik can be rather confusing in how he presents his ideas, but I don't think he is making anything up[/I]. This whole "DNA" analogy is rather over-done and I think now just leads to more confusion. What Hendrik has done is look at the mechanics and techniques found in various Wing Chun lineages and determined what is common to all of them. This common element suggests a common source and is therefore the "DNA" that Hendrik is looking for. He posts all those things on youtube expecting us to pick up on these same common elements shared by different lineages of Wing Chun. And what he is talking about is a deeper layer then just the fact that all have a SLT, CK, and BG form. Now what accurate "DNA" should consist of may be debatable, and something that Hendrik needs to line out for us better.
[...]

I tend to agree with what KPM says here, particularly the bits I highlight in italic.

Hendrik, I think one issue why people, myself included, struggle to understand and follow you at points is because there is lack of brevity on your behalf in your video clips. I think this is partly down to there being a lot of repetition and repeating of points across and within single video clips.

Hendrik, have jox and yourself furthered that document outlying the 'DNA' any further? I actually thought that document the best direction to go in to refine your arguments and points, particularly if you guys went a little further into the biomechanics, from a 'western' 'sports science' point of view i.e. like this book , that characterize this 'DNA'.

[tc101]

I think things are much more complicated than that.

---Of course. No analogy is ever perfect, and historical research can be very complicated.

This is not historical research that is how Hendrik likes to refer to it but that does not make it so. It is historical speculation with a predetermined outcome.

---If we found a letter written by Yip Man to Leung Bik or vice versa, we might know. If Leung Bik's son or one of his students was still alive and someone found him and he said he had seen Yip Man training with Leung Bik personally, we would know. If Leung Bik left a lineage of students that still existed and we could see things that they did that are found in Yip Man's Wing Chun but not in Chan Wah Shun lineage students, we might know. It all depends upon what evidence is still around. Sometimes there is none! Sometimes there may be something to find. That's the nature of historical research.

I used this example to show how even with simple lineage things are difficult and often impossible to know. This gets many many times more difficult and complex when you start trying to figure out what who when influenced a persons wing chun development.

I do not see how oral or written accounts of wing chun lore can be taken seriously. Even those are cherry picked and interpreted.

---This is true. But most legends have a foundation in fact. When various points in legends from various sources match up, we have a better idea of what the facts might have been.

That is a nice cliche but is not really true. Legend may have some basis in reality but also can be complete fabrication.

Hendrik's wing chun DNA is his creation to give his subjective conclusions based on limited cherry picked information weight.

---No, Hendrik can be rather confusing in how he presents his ideas, but I don't think he is making anything up. This whole "DNA" analogy is rather over-done and I think now just leads to more confusion. What Hendrik has done is look at the mechanics and techniques found in various Wing Chun lineages and determined what is common to all of them. This common element suggests a common source and is therefore the "DNA" that Hendrik is looking for. He posts all those things on youtube expecting us to pick up on these same common elements shared by different lineages of Wing Chun. And what he is talking about is a deeper layer then just the fact that all have a SLT, CK, and BG form. Now what accurate "DNA" should consist of may be debatable, and something that Hendrik needs to line out for us better.

How can you say he is not making things up? His DNA analogy is his creation.

Of course wing chun has common elements that is why we are all doing wing chun and not different arts. Is that not blatantly obvious?

Common elements does not suggest a common source although that is one possibility.

One of the many many assumptions behind Hendrik's DNA conclusion is that these common elements are narrow in expression when in reality they are quite variable and can have wide expression even in the same lineage or even between classmates. Mechanics for example can be widely variable within the same group.

The problem is that the common elements do not extend to a deeper level they are all on the top most level, the most obvious level. We all have the most simple basic things, the tools, rudimentary concepts and so forth. This is why almost anyone with a little experience can identify wing chun when they see it. Beyond that as we get deeper things get much more individualized, have wide variation and are no longer in common.

[GlennR]

This is not historical research that is how Hendrik likes to refer to it but that does not make it so. It is historical speculation with a predetermined outcome.



I used this example to show how even with simple lineage things are difficult and often impossible to know. This gets many many times more difficult and complex when you start trying to figure out what who when influenced a persons wing chun development.



That is a nice cliche but is not really true. Legend may have some basis in reality but also can be complete fabrication.



How can you say he is not making things up? His DNA analogy is his creation.

Of course wing chun has common elements that is why we are all doing wing chun and not different arts. Is that not blatantly obvious?

Common elements does not suggest a common source although that is one possibility.

One of the many many assumptions behind Hendrik's DNA conclusion is that these common elements are narrow in expression when in reality they are quite variable and can have wide expression even in the same lineage or even between classmates. Mechanics for example can be widely variable within the same group.

The problem is that the common elements do not extend to a deeper level they are all on the top most level, the most obvious level. We all have the most simple basic things, the tools, rudimentary concepts and so forth. This is why almost anyone with a little experience can identify wing chun when they see it. Beyond that as we get deeper things get much more individualized, have wide variation and are no longer in common.

Nice post TC101..... you sum Hendriks approach to this very well