Hi Guys,
I understand what you saying and even where Hendrik is coming from, but honestly, enough is enough. How many people from Yip Man's line goes on about their advanced version of SLT, because some lines have one. With this I'm not talking about William Cheung's version but an actual alternate version that contains turning and a small section similar to Chum Kiu, this was taught to some early Foshan students. I've seen it, I've even "practiced" it but will not make claims that it is "original" WC from 1850. I understand what Hendrik is trying to bring across, but if you look closely the agenda is still there. All this DNA and engine talk is just semantics IMO. I can appreciate variety and nuance the same as anyone else, but to hop up on the soap box and reiterate the same dribble over and over is getting redundant. I will give Hendrik credit for his research he does a good job at uncovering WC's past but it all seems to lead into the DNA & engine thing and how a 150-200 years ago it was completely different and how so much has been lost. Nothing has been lost, people just want to believe that they have in their possession something that no one else has. Wing Chun for what it is, is complete and lacks nothing that isn't necessary. I'm pretty sure as an art that visually it hasn't changed much from it's conception. It's only visually different within the lines that have other influences whether they admit it or not ex: Pao Fa Lien, Chan Family, Tang Family, Cho Family, etc....See where I'm coming from, look into it for yourselves only the lineages with obvious other art influences make unverified claims and promote an alternate spin on the history to justify their innovations. Nothing wrong with mixing it up, that's how things evolve after all, just admit to it. Doesn't matter if it happened yesterday or 200 years ago. Even Hendrik admitted that someone in Cho family altered SLT with Choy Lay Fut, could of happened 175 years ago and for all I know that's when the Kuen Kuit was written. Whose to say that their Kuen Kuit wasn't codified after the alterations were made and that's why they have a description for all the moves in SLT. Kuen Kuit proves absolutely nothing other than someone took the time to write their understanding of the art down, it is not a certificate of authenticity by any means.
I can appreciate the relevance of how the formal salutation of Cho family coincides with Hung Mun practices and how that fits in with the performance of the opera. That is interesting, irrelevant but interesting none-the-less. I get it that it's a window to the past and what the art may or may not have looked like back then. But that is still only one version, it's a linear view. There is no absolute proof that Wing Chun was one long form, 3 forms or simply San Sik in it's originality. Truth is all 3 methods were probably used interchangeably and at roughly the same time. My argument from the very beginning is.........With so many branches how could such as huge and integral part of the art be completely forgotten and overwritten as Hendrik, Sergio and others suggest with this "DNA & Engine" theory? It's bullsh!t, nothing more than a shameless ruse of self promotion and anyone who is stupid enough to blindly believe in it obviously hasn't learned any Wing Chun that is worth a d@mn. I don't care what Great Grand Poo Pah of WC you learned from, if you believe this "theory" you didn't learn sh!t.
Reply With Quote