Wing Chun & Emei Mini Report '2014'

**LFJ** · 05-14-2014, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by theo

i think on one hand, you've got the people making up theories and speculating while on the other, there are actual documents and multiple sources including the Emei lineage holder himself confirming the connection.

This is just one hand belonging to the same person/people!

Almost all TCMA are interrelated in both writings and techniques. But you actually have no historical documents stating the connection between Emei and Wing Chun, how they are related, how the arts spread from one area to another, when, from whom to whom, etc..

A guy in 2014 looking at your material and saying 'hey, that's similar to what we do' is not a confirmation of anything beyond similarity. Understand? There's a lot more work ahead of you guys if you wish to make the declarations you're trying now.

**zuti car** · 05-14-2014, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Paddington

How old is Emei zuti car? Do you know? I don't.

Those who have spent time with members of VTAA, including WSL, should know that qigong has been practiced as a part of wing chun for a very long time within that association. Nearly all of the sifus and masters during the VTAA early period have mentioned and shown qigong practices to train and use alongside their wing chun. Likewise it is a similar situation with respects to the idea of the bows where the only difference I can spot with respects to what Hendrik has said, is the highlighting of the 7th (or first depending where you start your count) bow, namely the foot's connection with the ground.

I don't know , what I do know is that there is no evidence of emei snake in 19th and early 20th Century , no documents , no stone carvings , no wooden plates , nothing , just a lot of legends( marketing) and all that can be traced to the late republican period and pulp fiction novels . Real historical research is not what "researchers" like hendrik&co are doing, colleting old people's stories and picking what ever they find on the web to fit in their idea of history . There is something called SCIENTIFIC METHOD , and it is very well known and there are standards which should be applied to any scientific research . Now , people can play researchers , like some of them here are doing for a long time for various reasons but outcome will be nothing more than fiction and personal desires mixed in a fairy tale ,or they can rely on science in order to get the truth .

**theo** · 05-14-2014, 04:19 AM

LFJ, in this case though, it's not someone just looking and saying it looks similar. GM Fu has gone through the writing from 1848 SLT and the Emei match up. Unless you're saying that he doesn't recognize his own Emei content?

Originally Posted by LFJ

This is just one hand belonging to the same person/people!

Almost all TCMA are interrelated in both writings and techniques. But you actually have no historical documents stating the connection between Emei and Wing Chun, how they are related, how the arts spread from one area to another, when, from whom to whom, etc..

A guy in 2014 looking at your material and saying 'hey, that's similar to what we do' is not a confirmation of anything beyond similarity. Understand? There's a lot more work ahead of you guys if you wish to make the declarations you're trying now.

**LFJ** · 05-14-2014, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by theo

LFJ, in this case though, it's not someone just looking and saying it looks similar. GM Fu has gone through the writing from 1848 SLT and the Emei match up. Unless you're saying that he doesn't recognize his own Emei content?

Anyone who has done TCMA research will know many TCMAs share similar or matching verses and different expressions of the same body of techniques. That's because they are interrelated, but it doesn't tell us anything about how, when, where, who...

You're all basically taking a giant leap from 'hey, these are similar/matching' to 'we have now confirmed the origin of Wing Chun', but you completely lack any amount of definitive historical information answering the essential questions.

**tc101** · 05-14-2014, 05:22 AM

Originally Posted by LFJ

Anyone who has done TCMA research will know many TCMAs share similar or matching verses and different expressions of the same body of techniques. That's because they are interrelated, but it doesn't tell us anything about how, when, where, who...

You're all basically taking a giant leap from 'hey, these are similar/matching' to 'we have now confirmed the origin of Wing Chun', but you completely lack any amount of definitive historical information answering the essential questions.

Yes that is very true. Also as others point out that perhaps the case can be made that ermei and Hendrik's lineage of wing chun are related some how but since other branches of wing chun do not have his kuit which is the so called link there is no evidence they are related. All we can say is Hendrik's branch adopted the ermei stuff at some point.

The thing I find interesting in all this is how none of the people doing this so called research have ever ever ever demonstrated the least martial skill.

**HybridWarrior** · 05-14-2014, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by tc101

...and Hendrik's lineage of wing chun...

Exactly!!

Originally Posted by tc101

All we can say is Hendrik's branch adopted the ermei stuff at some point.

Yup!!!

I think the problem with all this dumb-assery (technical term! haha) is that HS comes across on this forum that it's not only his WC but ALL of WC that is missing the secret sauce and that we all suck without it.

**zuti car** · 05-14-2014, 08:24 PM