Latest WCI and WCK history

[gumgongsao]

Hello, Keith

First, I am quite apalled coming to this forum with the genuine intentions of offering my knowledge, contributions and insights to answering questions that you first raised and asked in previous posts. To reiterate, I come from several Wing Chun branches with over 23 years knowledge experience and specific insights from HFY perspective as well as several other wing chun branches' perspectives and wanted to provide genuine information in debunking certain myths, slanted perspectives or unknowledgeable uneducated guess'. I've already shared with the forum that in the past more than a dozen well knowledged individuals from TWC lineage for the pure sense of art exchange have sat down, ate lunch together and chatted along with skill exchange for the good intention with possitive feedback of varying differences that we all share in the areas of forms, theory, concepts, principles, formulas to expressions and applications.

You obviously did not know how to interpret what I wrote. Then to find out that you not only did not read my posts except copy and paste bit by bit without the true meanings of what I meant, turning around and twist the original ideas for which they portray and also put words in my mouth that I did not say. I have only replied with one post on your original initiated questions and you claim that I gang up on you? You truely did not understand the gist of the ideas behind it or did you even read what I had posted? You seem to keep running in circles like a chicken head chopped off, questioning this, questioning that, comparing this, comparing that. The answers are already shown to you and it's quite simple and clear. Trying to explain something as simple as this seems to me like 对牛弹琴 (Duì niú tán qín) (to play the lute to a cow) / meaning - 'to talk philosophy to a fool.'

1. TWC and HFY share many superficial similarities that they do NOT share with Yip Man WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK, and other Red Boat lineages. Anyone with a good background in Wing Chun can spot this. JP and Billy have both admitted to this.

Wrong! I did not admit to anything in my original post and what's written is strictly your own perspective putting words in my mouth. Plus I truely disagree with this statement.

I think there is at least a superficial similarity between HFY and TWC that is stronger than the similiarities between HFY and YKS WCK or TWC and YSK WCK or between HFY and Ku Lo WCK or TWC and Ku Lo WCK, etc. Billy seemed to agree with that.

Wrong! Once again something written by you and accusing me of saying it in a later post. I never agreed to that statement.

What "rumors" are you talking about? Billy and JP both admitted to the strong similarities between HFY and TWC.

Wrong! Again something written by you and accusing that I said it.

So, to follow the analogy, HFY and TWC fall into one category based on recognizable similarities between them, and YSK WCK, KL WCK, IM WCK, and YC WCK fall into another category based on the similarities between them, and someone with an educated eye can spot this. Is that so hard to follow? Is that talking in circles? Doesn't that make logical sense? And if they fall into these categories it follows that they are more closely related, just as the paintings would be in my analogy. This is ALL I have been saying, and look at the vindictiveness it has received in response!!!!

Once again, from the 1850's and beyond to modern day (today), we can see clearly from many sources of documented facts that there are two separate major transfer's of knowledge based on the widespread of Wing Chun worldwide. Most of such documentation revolves around two major ancestral lines. One of such is William Cheung giving credit back to Yip Man and Yip Man giving credit back to CWS/Leung Bik from the Opera Society WCK. For me, I have true respect for all Wing Chun practitioners, and their subsequent lineages. I also have respect for GM William Chung and have very high respect for GM Yip Man and all of the subsequent branches and I believe in the official story of Yip Man not only learning from CWS but also giving credit back to Leung Bik. The other ancestral line is Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen giving credit back to the Hung Gun Boxer Society. All in all, both systems, accounts of historical event which trace back to beyond 1850's are all consistent and holds true.

Restating what I said in that post, "However, people (generally speaking) see the connection from these two lineages. Does HFY and TWC seem much more close and alike in many ways than other Wing Chun lineages? My answer is No. What is meant is that HFY and TWC has a connection, this connection persists also with HFY with YKS WCK, KL WCK, IM WCK, and YC WCK as well as any WCK. Based on my many years experience in HFY and varying branches of Wing Chun I can tell you that from my perspective simply watching HFY and TWC that we are not at all similar. What is similar is that we have Tan Sao, they have Tan Sao. We have Bong Sao, they have Bong Sao. We have Fook Sao, they have Fook Sao. These varying similarities persists throughout all WCK and all varying branches as well. The so called "connection" if you look at 2-3 generations before the 1850's going back in history, you will see that we look like third cousins. If you go 1800's prior to the split and separation of these two major influences, you will in no doubt see alot more closer in resemblance of such Wing Chun lineages of the art resembling such like 2nd cousins or first cousins. It is not a fair accessment when you truely do not know the differing factors. You claim in many posts that they look similar, from my point of view they look very different. In fact if you are genuinely pure with the good intentions of learning such differences, I invite you to come to my Chi Sao Seminar two weeks from today you can ask such questions to my face so that I can show you what we are looking at, and also eliminate the need to put words in my mouth. The question is, Do you know what you are looking at? Obviously NOT! For me there's a big big difference. I will personally reserve a spot for you.

Sifu Billy Lau

[Minghequan]

Sifu Yung has asked me to share the following:

Sifu Wayne Yung just told me that the movie about the SCWC kuit is not coming out yet, and confirmed that the cinema release of the movie is on 7/4/2014, few days after. Hendrik, you need to make sure the right information shown in public. Another example: Hendrik referred the kuits in the video link on this interview by Ou rRadio in Cantonese in this thread Page 10 #142. It lasts for 20 mins only. However he is not the representative of Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun and baisee to Sifu Wayne's sifu in 2005. How many of us do understand Cantonese ? ================== 16/12/2012 Our Radio 國術頻道：莫偉強蛇鶴詠春門國術總會 (一) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItLy...=youtube_gdata

Also, this guy, according to Sifu Wayne Yung, like Hendrik, made an public announcement to leave his sifu, and quit the Mun, no more be a SCWC member. I find the other formal interview by Our Radio too with Sifu Wayne Yung in Cantonese too. The title of it is Sifu Wayne Yung, Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun, talking in details about Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun. It lasts for around 1 hour long. Why Hendrik not referring to his interview by Sifu Wayne Yung ? ================== 1/11/2013 蛇鶴詠春門 翁國榮師傅 01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=gme-60ZGcQE ================== Here we can see how Hendrik brings incorrect information to us.

[KPM]

Hey Billy! Thanks for the invite! But you didn't say where the seminar would be held.

Look. I apologize to you Billy and to JP if I have misrepresented you. And I apologize especially to you Billy because it is clear below that I was thinking more of what JP said than what you said. But it certainly seemed to me that both of you were admitting that TWC and HFY were closer "cousins" than HFY and other WCK lineages. Maybe I misunderstood. I know you will both think I am quoting you out of context, but here is what I saw you saying:

Billy said this in post #209:

From these TWC people, even though there are many claims that HFY and TWC looks alike, once they have come to witness and experience HFY for themselves, they see a big difference between HFY and TWC teachings ranging from theory, concepts, to principles and formulas to expressions and applications. And only those individuals who have experienced HFY for themselves can really distinguish such differences.

If it takes someone experienced in HFY to really distinguish such differences, then that sure sounds like some pretty "strong similarities" to me!

JP followed it up with this in post #210:

I also agree that look at the surface, they do share similarities that you don't see in other modern WC lines. So it's fair to say they are closer cousins that other mainstream WC lineages. and understandable to hear people from the outside of these 2 lineages to feel they have a 'link' in some way.

"Share similarities that you don't see in other modern WC lines"......"closer cousins than other mainstream WC lineages"......am I misquoting you JP?

JP said this in post #217:

yes, there are similarities in footwork positions, and some similarities in SNT that aren't seen in other mainstream lineages - that much is obvious. So yeah, since they are both WCK and both come from the same source (as does all WCK) and clearly have a closer relation than other lines, they are going to look alike. And this: they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK And this: Again, you feel they share visual more similarities if you compare to other Ip Man lineages. No one is denying that, but that's surface level stuff.

I don't think that is out of context.

So, again I apologize if those statements are not actually what you guys meant to say. But even if you retract any statements about TWC and HFY being in any way similar, it still doesn't negate the logical points I have already laid out.

[KPM]

Ron wrote:
Sifu Yung has asked me to share the following:

Ron, someone will need to interpret that for us. I have no idea what it is talking about or referring to!

[zuti car]

Can anyone see similarities between TWC and HFY that go beyond visual ? This what I can see
- Both styles are "the only original , true and purest " wing chun style . HFY is "softer" than TWC in their claims but basically they say same thing
-All other styles of wing chun are inferior or incomplete to thous two ,while William said that directly ,Gee is saying that indirectly ,but both are saying same thing
-Both styles have unverifiable histories and trace their origin to the person who never existed .
-Both "grandmasters" completed learning before age of 18 , but no one actually know what did they learn and how long did they trained . In Williams case we know he learned from Yip Man something , but what he said about the matter and what other people ,who trained with Yip Man at same time as William, said about his training are different . In Gee's case we don't know nothing , starting with his birth place ( he claims that he was born in China ) .
-Both "grandmasters" are sole inheritor of the art .
-The art was secret , passed down only to family members or carefully chosen disciples until William and Gee decided , from the goodness of their heart ($$$), to share their knowledge with the world .
-Both styles have overdeveloped theory to support their claims about style's superiority and they are using terminology and relations that could not exist in 1850's in China , nevertheless , they are claiming that styles are perfect and didn't changed since 1850's .
-Both "grandmasters" are tremendous fighter , and while William kicked asses to 12 people with knives , Gee is much more humble , he kicked asses to 3 or 4 guys somewhere .
-Cult like behavior , which is much more obvious in HFY .

What I see is exactly the same marketing strategy with specific targets and adjustment to the time period when promotion actually started . Williams approach is more direct , more crude than Gee's approach , but it was very well planned and very well suited for time period when William started to promote him self publicly . Gee's approach is more detailed and far less direct than William's but in essence he is telling exactly the same story. The only difference is , william targeted wide range of individuals while Gee is targeting specific "mind frame" and people in HFY are involved in the style much longer than people in TWC .

[chunner]

still waiting for someone to list out the exact grievances. What info was stolen? What secrets shared? It's all public info from the ebook.

Ron wrote:
Sifu Yung has asked me to share the following:

Ron, someone will need to interpret that for us. I have no idea what it is talking about or referring to!

[PalmStriker]

Can anyone see similarities between TWC and HFY that go beyond visual ? This what I can see
- Both styles are "the only original , true and purest " wing chun style . HFY is "softer" than TWC in their claims but basically they say same thing
-All other styles of wing chun are inferior or incomplete to thous two ,while William said that directly ,Gee is saying that indirectly ,but both are saying same thing
-Both styles have unverifiable histories and trace their origin to the person who never existed .
-Both "grandmasters" completed learning before age of 18 , but no one actually know what did they learn and how long did they trained . In Williams case we know he learned from Yip Man something , but what he said about the matter and what other people ,who trained with Yip Man at same time as William, said about his training are different . In Gee's case we don't know nothing , starting with his birth place ( he claims that he was born in China ) .
-Both "grandmasters" are sole inheritor of the art .
-The art was secret , passed down only to family members or carefully chosen disciples until William and Gee decided , from the goodness of their heart ($$$), to share their knowledge with the world .
-Both styles have overdeveloped theory to support their claims about style's superiority and they are using terminology and relations that could not exist in 1850's in China , nevertheless , they are claiming that styles are perfect and didn't changed since 1850's .
-Both "grandmasters" are tremendous fighter , and while William kicked asses to 12 people with knives , Gee is much more humble , he kicked asses to 3 or 4 guys somewhere .
-Cult like behavior , which is much more obvious in HFY .

What I see is exactly the same marketing strategy with specific targets and adjustment to the time period when promotion actually started . Williams approach is more direct , more crude than Gee's approach , but it was very well planned and very well suited for time period when William started to promote him self publicly . Gee's approach is more detailed and far less direct than William's but in essence he is telling exactly the same story. The only difference is , william targeted wide range of individuals while Gee is targeting specific "mind frame" and people in HFY are involved in the style much longer than people in TWC .

Thanks for the insight zuti car. Will keep that in mind.

[Daniel Fong]

Daniel, I don't know everything that happened, any nobody has been able to answer this yet: What is the crime here?

Everything Hendrik and Sergio are saying is from the public ebook. It's all public info that both Hendrik and SCWC released together. He seems to be just referencing the ebook content only in his discussions. Where is the betrayal?

If Hendrik takes a public ebook info and gives it Sergio, so what? It's public already.

Go to Facebook "New Era 1850 Wing Chun Kuen" and "Wing Chun Forum", you will get the right answers. Both talk to their own individual groups only.

[KPM]

Well, this certainly isn't going to make the HFY guys happy! I see a real sh!t storm coming now! Get ready! But really guys, this thread now has over 8,000 hits. Are there only 2 of us that see that there is a similarity between TWC and HFY that goes beyond the fact that they share a common origin from over 150 years ago? Does ANYONE agree with the simple logic I have laid out to say that any relationship between them has to be more recent than 150 years ago? You need to speak up, because so far....other than zuti....4 HFY guys have posted and tried to make it look like I am the one that is crazy or rude or with a political agenda...or something. And really, I'm just trying to talk a little logical common sense here. So a little support would be nice!

Can anyone see similarities between TWC and HFY that go beyond visual ? This what I can see
- Both styles are "the only original , true and purest " wing chun style . HFY is "softer" than TWC in their claims but basically they say same thing
-All other styles of wing chun are inferior or incomplete to thous two ,while William said that directly ,Gee is saying that indirectly ,but both are saying same thing
-Both styles have unverifiable histories and trace their origin to the person who never existed .
-Both "grandmasters" completed learning before age of 18 , but no one actually know what did they learn and how long did they trained . In Williams case we know he learned from Yip Man something , but what he said about the matter and what other people ,who trained with Yip Man at same time as William, said about his training are different . In Gee's case we don't know nothing , starting with his birth place ( he claims that he was born in China ) .
-Both "grandmasters" are sole inheritor of the art .
-The art was secret , passed down only to family members or carefully chosen disciples until William and Gee decided , from the goodness of their heart ($$$), to share their knowledge with the world .
-Both styles have overdeveloped theory to support their claims about style's superiority and they are using terminology and relations that could not exist in 1850's in China , nevertheless , they are claiming that styles are perfect and didn't changed since 1850's .
-Both "grandmasters" are tremendous fighter , and while William kicked asses to 12 people with knives , Gee is much more humble , he kicked asses to 3 or 4 guys somewhere .
-Cult like behavior , which is much more obvious in HFY .

What I see is exactly the same marketing strategy with specific targets and adjustment to the time period when promotion actually started . Williams approach is more direct , more crude than Gee's approach , but it was very well planned and very well suited for time period when William started to promote him self publicly . Gee's approach is more detailed and far less direct than William's but in essence he is telling exactly the same story. The only difference is , william targeted wide range of individuals while Gee is targeting specific "mind frame" and people in HFY are involved in the style much longer than people in TWC .

[BPWT..]

Are there only 2 of us that see that there is a similarity between TWC and HFY that goes beyond the fact that they share a common origin from over 150 years ago? Does ANYONE agree with the simple logic I have laid out to say that any relationship between them has to be more recent than 150 years ago?

You are not alone.

I think that many readers probably agree with you, KPM... but the reason many have not posted is that they, unlike you, haven't experienced (first hand) TWC or HFY. Myself, I've not met anyone from either group (so I'm truly uninformed ). Outside of the US, is there much HFY being taught?

But over the years many people have said they see similarities between the two, and here some of the HFY guys have said that there are indeed 'superficial' similarities, etc.

For me, your logic is, well, logical.

Arts mutate and change over time, sometimes in a short period of time, and so yes - it seems very odd for some to say that over the course of 150 years the two arts mentioned still retain a pretty common look because of that 150-year-old connection, and not because of more recent interaction.

Personally, I have a difficult time accepting William Cheung's story of how he learned TWC from Yip Man, if only for that fact that is makes no sense that YM would learn this TWC from LB (if we even accept that story), and then YM would somehow know and be training this TWC in secret but never showing anyone (until Master WC came along). How would someone be able to hide this method when teaching and training with others??? Wouldn't it just 'slip out', so to speak.

That said, I also don't believe William C made it all up himself... he learned it from somewhere, and if what he does has more similarities with HFY than it does with YM, YKS, etc Wing Chun, then it seems logical that he had contact with HFY, or a very similar art... in recent times. Why? Because I don't believe William C is over 150 years old.

ziti car's post will either be ignored by the HFY and TWC guys, or they will unleash all manner of internet rage at it. Although he/she is not playing politely with that post, it does raise a few interesting points... so I hope people will respond to it.

[zuti car]

You are not alone.

ziti car's post will either be ignored by the HFY and TWC guys, or they will unleash all manner of internet rage at it.

William's followers tried to do some bad things to me in the past , because I do not respect the "grandmaster" and I do not believe in his story . Beside all other things I got a death threats as well . Anyway , I didn't comment technical part of TWC and HFY , although I was involved in TWC for some time I have no experience with HFY , so, that the part I will not comment . What I have experience with , and formal education , is marketing . I can see basically the same story with same message . Market positioning is different , and that is expected , and the later story is much more detailed , and that is also expected because HFY needed to find a specific place on the already supersaturated market . HFY also met difficulties that William haven't had . When William started , flow and exchange of information and knowledge was insignificant . He showed up with an original story and no one could prove him wrong at the time . Later , things changed and HFY needed much more effort and more careful approach to the market ,because people already knew a lot and a lot happened ( william vs emin is one of the things ) . I admire William's sense of business , he made an excellent strategy and at the time he did really well , I will not talk about the amounts of money ,but I have that information as well . He had several other great Ideas at the time , but for some reason he abandoned them , later some people capitalized enormously on same ideas

[Jim Roselando]

Minghequan wrote:

Wayne Yung is not only referring to the date change but also something more sinister:

he change his old kuen kuit and SCWC kuen kuit,

there is no right for those who INTENTIONALLY make any changes and say SCWC kuit to mislead others.

***

The 1st complaint is Hendrik's so-called wrong translation of S&C Kuit "Flying Snake...". Im confused? If this translation was so aweful then how come Wayne didn't change it before publishing it in NMH and other locations?

Same translation in NMH, Same translation in eBook on page 2 & 6 "Flying Snake.."

http://www.slideshare.net/ccwayne/sc...gchunscwcykwaa

***

The 2nd complaint is a wrong date in Sergio's "True History Part Two". Why blame Hendrik for this? For the past two years Hendrik has stated 1890 numerous times but someone makes a video and quotes the wrong date and S&C has a hissy fit? This IMO is laughable.

Hendrik & Wayne never had one issue until Sergio contacted Hendrik! YES That is the real issue. When Sergio & Hendrik started talking, Wayne freaked out and so began the beginning of the end of their friendship. The rest of this a smoke screen.

I really find all this Kung Fu Drama to be a total joke. Anyone who has read any of the Law history published by Wayne knows it has more holes than Swiss Cheese. Their precious notebook was written FORTY YEARS after the Red Boat era. They claim Jee Shin & Sum Kam but everyone knows they are WENG CHUN and not Wing Chun. Wing Chun comes from the Yim family & Leung family. Wayne knows this! That is why in his published articles he wrote "Leung Lon Gwai" was the more likely person but yet he tells his S&C team the known wrong info in the notebook about Jee Shin/Sum Kam...

So, lets review, Wayne publishes something but later blames Hendrik. He then blames Hendrik for a mis-quote in Sergio's video. Wayne also has no problem publishing articles claiming LLG but tells others the known wrong info from the 1890 book.... I could go on and on.........

Basically, look at my left hand so you cant see what's in my right hand is the game that is being played. All this is nothing more than a distraction by Wayne to hide the fact that he freaked out when Hendrik was contacted by Sergio which was the birth of all this drama.

[Wayfaring]

Well, this certainly isn't going to make the HFY guys happy! I see a real sh!t storm coming now! Get ready! But really guys, this thread now has over 8,000 hits. Are there only 2 of us that see that there is a similarity between TWC and HFY that goes beyond the fact that they share a common origin from over 150 years ago? Does ANYONE agree with the simple logic I have laid out to say that any relationship between them has to be more recent than 150 years ago? You need to speak up, because so far....other than zuti....4 HFY guys have posted and tried to make it look like I am the one that is crazy or rude or with a political agenda...or something. And really, I'm just trying to talk a little logical common sense here. So a little support would be nice!

What are you on about here?

Oh, right, trying to get a rise out of HFY and TWC guys by stirring up old myths.

Carry on. You guys are welcome to your opinion and story. Never mind the HFY guys and Phil Redmond and the TWC guys all have investigated it and are settled. I think Dale Vits was the TWC sifu that first visited from my recollection. But hey, don't let facts and truth get in your way.

[Wayfaring]

William's followers tried to do some bad things to me in the past , because I do not respect the "grandmaster" and I do not believe in his story . Beside all other things I got a death threats as well . Anyway , I didn't comment technical part of TWC and HFY , although I was involved in TWC for some time I have no experience with HFY , so, that the part I will not comment . What I have experience with , and formal education , is marketing . I can see basically the same story with same message . Market positioning is different , and that is expected , and the later story is much more detailed , and that is also expected because HFY needed to find a specific place on the already supersaturated market . HFY also met difficulties that William haven't had . When William started , flow and exchange of information and knowledge was insignificant . He showed up with an original story and no one could prove him wrong at the time . Later , things changed and HFY needed much more effort and more careful approach to the market ,because people already knew a lot and a lot happened ( william vs emin is one of the things ) . I admire William's sense of business , he made an excellent strategy and at the time he did really well , I will not talk about the amounts of money ,but I have that information as well . He had several other great Ideas at the time , but for some reason he abandoned them , later some people capitalized enormously on same ideas

Hey zuti. What's up? Sorry, but kind of sounds like you are commenting on HFY with no experience in it while saying you're not commenting on it.

I guess you don't believe sifu Gee's history. I'm not sure how much of it you have heard. But that's fine. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

[KPM]

What are you on about here?

Oh, right, trying to get a rise out of HFY and TWC guys by stirring up old myths.

Carry on. You guys are welcome to your opinion and story. Never mind the HFY guys and Phil Redmond and the TWC guys all have investigated it and are settled. I think Dale Vits was the TWC sifu that first visited from my recollection. But hey, don't let facts and truth get in your way.

Here is a great example of what I was talking about above! "Stirring up old myths"???!!!!! "Facts and truth"?????? I've laid out a very simple and logical conclusion. BPWT, thank you for backing me up! But until others start speaking out for what seems pretty obvious the HFY crowd will continue to believe that everyone else is just out there somewhere!