Reply to hfy Meng from Chu Sifu [Archive]

Alan Orr

01-16-2007, 03:11 AM

Hi Guys

Alan Orr here, Sorry to bore the hell out of you.

This is a reply from my teacher Robert Chu to Benny Meng's thread on HFY fourm.

What a waste of time and energy... but my teacher Robert Chu has made a reply to stop benny's twist on things

Master B wrote:

Before we talk about the present, the past needs to be clearly
understood.
Let’s back up and get things straight. It seems to me that Robert Chu’s
students present themselves as if they are interested in the truth but
the
reality is that they are fooled by the King of the Pien Gwai Lo.

RC: I make no claims about being the original WCK, or charge $20 K for
discipleship and otherwise...

Master B:
Coming from many sources in the martial arts community over many years
Robert Chu has been attacking and badmouthing well-known and
well-respected
Sifus for a long time. In the past there were no consequences for his
actions so he continues his childish, immature behavior to this day.
This
probably has to do with his youth in New York City. He told me himself
that
he used to hang out with gangs and street toughs and the attitude was
all
about protecting yourself first. Those experiences as a youth seem to
be
powerful as they are still influencing his behavior. Being a product of
that
environment it seems that he’s still clinging to that attitude. But
he’s
messing with the wrong people: he disrespected my Sifu and the HFY
lineage.

RC: Again, Ad Hominen attacks of a system that has no credentials.
This
shows that BM was my student - I had my youth fighting with gangsters
and
other punks. Childish, immature behavior? I don't see that, nor is
that
relevant to HFY's alleged history. BM and HFY is insulting all WCK
systems
of today as well as the ancestors with their false claims.

BM: My post here is not to argue which lineage is better or the
historical
facts of Wing Chun. My post here is to make clear that Robert Chu
started
rumors about HFY and Grand Master Gee, thinking he could get away with
it.
If Alan is concerned about justice and truth, why has he ignored
Robert’s
latest writing attacking the HFY lineage in the thread I started here?
Alan
spoke to me, asking ‘why is Gary attacking my Sifu?’ The fact of the
matter
is that we’re not attacking anybody – we’re stating the facts. The
negative
image that Robert Chu has is solely his responsibility. Gary is simply
defending his Kung Fu family. Remember, the fact of the matter is that
Robert Chu initiated the defamation of HFY years ago when HFY first
came out
to the public just like he started this latest round of politics. Alan
talks
about ‘what matters is application’… in our family, what matters is
doing
what is right. The Shaolin Monks didn’t study martial arts simply to
learn
how to beat each other up. Instead, they learned how to apply the
lessons
they learned through martial arts training to living life. In our
family, we
start with what things appear to be, the Sik. Then we bring students to
the
understanding of Lei and Faat – the fundamentals of Principles, Laws
and
Essence. Because of this process, we teach our students to think
independently. Often in class, we tell the students “don’t believe what
you
hear or see, gain the wisdom and experience for yourself and make the
conclusion on your own.” We want our students to be independent
thinkers.
This is our organizational methods. Don’t fall into the trap of what
appears
to be…

RC: But they all act like lemmings in listening to BM's rants. HFY is
the
system that says it is original and authenticv from Shaolin. We know
it is
simply not true. I started no rumors, just do what Parlotti said, "No
one
with half a brain is going to accept what either man says (Cheung and
Gee)
on blind faith." I question the authenticity of the lineage and if
that is
an insult, and the HFY boys take it as such, then so be it - I just
don't
believe what is the big deal to attack me. Where is the proof that
says Gee
did not learn from William Cheung? HFY looks very much like TWC.
Notice
what BM says here "My post here is not to argue which lineage is better
or
the historical facts of Wing Chun." More smoke - simply show us the
proof
of the system.

BM: To start from the beginning I want to lay out some background
information first.

RC: This is all irrelevant.

BM: Part I: How Robert Chu left the Moy Yat family

RC: Acording to BM...LOL!

BM: Robert Chu told me himself that he was a student of Sifu Lee Moy
Shan.
Sifu Lee is my Sihing in the Moy Yat family. Robert said he wanted to
finish
the system, specifically the weapons. Robert approached his Sifu,
saying to
the effect that “I’ve been here long enough and I want to finish the
system.” According to Robert, Sifu Lee replied to the effect that “You
have
many Sihing that haven’t completed the system yet so why should you be
so
special to finish ahead of them?”

RC: That is true. But what BM doiesn't know is that none of my
training
brothers learned the entire system, and that I suspected he did not
complete
the system from Moy Yat.

BM: Robert basically gave his Sifu an ultimatum, basically, “If you
don’t,
I’ll leave and go somewhere else.” Obviously, a student making this
kind of
ultimatum leaves the Sifu with no room to negotiate.

RC: This is assumption on BM's part. He does not know LMS or me. I
asked
LMS if he completed the whole system under MY. He said he did. At
that
time Lee was embroiled in another business, marriage,
and other things. When I questioned him, he felt that I did not
deserve his
answers, which is fine. My thought is he does not teach what he does
not
know or have.

BM: Sifu Lee said to the effect, “If you leave, don’t use my name.” And
Robert told me he walked out and as he left, he basically said, “F***
off! I
have my own name and it’s Chu.” This is how he ended his relationship
with
his Sifu.

RC: I told LMS if he wasn't willing to teach or did not know the entire
system, I would learn from somewhere else, as I had the desire to
complete
the system. There's nothing wrong with that. That shows a good,
determined
student. When Lee said, "Don't use my name if you teach", I simply
stated,
"My surname is Chu, I do not want anyone else's name. Success or not,
that
is my name." The Chu family is descended from the Ming Dynasty - why
would I
change my name to Lee or Moy? WHO DOES NOT HONOR THEIR FATHER? In
Chinese,
it is a grave insult not to be called by one's surname.

BM: Then, with nowhere to go, Robert went to his Sigung, Moy Yat.
Robert
told Grand Master Moy Yat that he didn’t have any money as he was still
in
college but that he wanted to finish the system – all he had to learn
was
the weapons. After discussion and interaction with Grand Master Moy
Yat, the
Grand Master said that Robert’s kung fu was still quite young and the
best
way to finish the system was to become a member of the Special Student
Association, which covers the entire system. The cost of that program
was
only $3000 for the whole system and lifetime support.

RC: Moy Yat came off as a greedy businessman, but now in hindsight, I
realize he was selling his craft. I felt he was conning me. And I
listened
to him for over an hour on how LMS did not study the compolete system
from
him and that Moy Yat only taught him formally up to Chum Kiu. My
disgust
with Moy Yat and Lee Moy Shan was that Moy Yat should have taken
responsibility and taught the complete system. This way LMS shouldn't
be
teaching. Of course, if this reaches public ears, this is not good.
Moy
Yat today is dead, and LMS has retired from teaching. Moy Yat wanted
to
give me a special deal, "Pay me $1K now, then $100 a month for 10
months and
then he would start me all over again. This is a special deal for you
because you are Chinese." I was disgusted with the entire way this
was
conducted. I decided to not train with them. I rejected that sales
offer
feeling that martial arts should not be sold in that way.

BM: To me, this is a bargain. I myself paid a lot more to learn from
Grand
Master Moy Yat and what I received was worth more than any amount of
money I
could spend. Years later in Robert’s writing on the Internet and in
published articles, he wrote about a ‘well-known Sifu in New York’
implying
that the Sifu only wants $3000 and cheats the public. When Robert
criticized
this Sifu he said that the Sifu didn’t touch his student’s hands and
couldn’t even fight.

RC: Which is true.

BM: Speaking about money, when I was doing research into the Gu Lao
system
with Robert, he charged me $1000 for two days but he ended up spending
more
than half the time showing me his interpretation of the Ip Man system.

RC: Because BM's WCK was so lacking, and his power was coming from his
shoulders, I had to correct BM's lack of stance, structure and
mechanics,
all of which he could not learn from Moy Yat, as a distance learning
student. I had to go back and correct his lousy forms and structure
and
lousy weapons application and form. To date, I still don't know if
he's
doing it right. At this time, BM was toppled over 40 times onto his
hotel
room bed because he did not have a root at all. It was pathetic that
his
gung fu was so low. As I charge $100 an hour, it is only fair I be
compensated for my time to fix him.

Part 1 continued

Alan Orr

01-16-2007, 03:13 AM

part 2 continued

BM: And as he showed me his Gu Lao, he had to look at his notes as he
couldn’t remember it directly. I came to California specifically to
research
Gu Lao as he said over the phone that he was an expert. When I met his
students during that trip, I asked his students about Gu Lao but none
of
them had learned it from him.

RC: Gu Lao WCK's structure is loose in multiple San Sao sets and
formless.
I looked at notes to make sure I left nothing out and taught that to
him
carefully and sequentially, as I wanted him to have it down. All this
proves I am a careful and thoughtful teacher. And then I gave him a
copy of
the notes. Don't like my teaching style is fine. But to say I don't
teach
is another story. Benny's lack of structure and stance was oathetic
for a
person allgedly certified to teach. He is a disgrace to the Moy Yat
family.
And if you ask people in the Moy Yat family about BM today, they don't
have
many good things to say about him and the VTM.

Part II: Complete Wing Chun

BM: Robert Chu was a nobody before the book Complete Wing Chun came
out.

RC: LOL! I thouyght I was always Robert Chu, at least in this
lifetime.

BM: As a matter of fact, he was just a guy that got kicked out of his
kung
fu family on the East Coast and moved to the West Coast to start over.
This
he told me himself.

RC: I got married and my wife's family is in California. BM is a
joker! I
moved because I was a loser? LOL! I moved because of my wife and the
opportunity to study with Hawkins Cheung whom, I met in late '87, and
invited for a seminar in April '88. Iwas really impressed with a WCK
sifu
taught by Yip Man who actively did Chi Sao with isstudents, emphasized
fighting application and not afraid to teach what he knew, unlike what
I had
experienced before. BM also seems to miss my training in HK under Koo
Sang
and meeting elders like Wong Shun Leung, Chu Sheung Tien, and Lo Man
Kam in
1987 where I studied the complete system in HK.

BM: In his own words, he said, “The hatred I have towards the Moy Yat
family
fueled my energy to continue to study Wing Chun.”

RC: Sure, which I used to channel my energy constructively.

BM: That was the reason he started looking into different lineages of
Wing
Chun.

RC: That is not why. I studied many things because they came my way,
like
meeting with Kwan Jong Yuen. Also, there is nothing wrong with looking
oiutside the family for better training methods, applications, and the
like.

BM: He started putting together information and through the Internet
met up
with Rene Ritchie. Robert suggested they put a book together. Robert
went to
different Wing Chun families and asked for help – he asked them to
write
information on their prospective lineages. Many of the chapters on
other
lineages were written by representatives of the respective lineages
without
receiving credit… except for Y. Wu. It turns out that Y. Wu understood
about
how publishing and royalties work. He insisted on having his name as an
author so he would receive a part of the royalties as he wrote the
Namyang
chapter.

RC: BM doesn't know what he's talking about. The idea for the book was
Y.
Wu's, who proposed it to RR, who asked my to co-author the book.

BM: John Murphy wrote the chapter on Hung Seun Wing Chun but didn’t get
credit. Andreas Hoffmann wrote the chapter on Chi Sim and didn’t get
credit
either. Why was that? Because Robert Chu didn’t inform them of the
total
situation. The issue here is that there should have been more than
three
authors on the book but Robert took all the credit. And as a side note,
Robert Chu told me personally that he did all the work on Complete Wing
Chun
by himself. That was before I found out all the information above. When
they
were writing the book, Robert and Rene had never even met in person. It
wasn’t until much later that they actually met face-to-face. As is his
character, after the meeting Robert told me (over the phone) that
Rene’s
skill sucked.

RC: BM is trying to put a wedge between Rene and I here. How much
more
silliness and pettiness do we see here? RR's WCK at the time was not
mature, lacking in body structure, structural alignment and vector
forces.
I did teach Rene everything and shared with him my knowledge openly.
As for
the book, it was to be co-authored by 3 co-authors. John Murphy wanted
to
be a co-author, but we controlled the format. All we wanted was to
interview the teachers and put the info in the format we were doing.
As it
was, the Hung Suen Chapter was not in the format we wanted. It is
glaringly
apparant in the Table of Contents. I did not take the credit for the
book
- it is co-authored by 3 people, not just Robert Chu. How silly!
Andreas
wrote nothing - I simply put together the chapter with Andreas info
that I
interviewed him for.

continued

Alan Orr

01-16-2007, 03:14 AM

part 3 continued

Part III: Robert Chu’s actions regarding Hung Fa Yi

BM: After the Grand Opening of the VTM in 1998, we had already done
many
years of research on the Ip Man lineage. Our next step was to go
outside the
Ip Man lineage. At that time, Robert Chu and Rene Ritchie had done some
research through the Internet on other lineages of Wing Chun outside
the Ip
Man lineage. The VTM’s policy was to do our research through first-hand
experience and face-to-face interaction with leaders and insiders to
the Ip
Man lineage. We continue that practice today. I was preparing a trip to
China for VTM Research into non-Ip Man Wing Chun lineages when I
noticed
that Grand Master Gee was living in California. I saw it in the chapter
on
Hung Suen that John Murphy wrote in Complete Wing Chun. I decided to
visit
GM Gee first because he was closer. I met him on December 8th, 1998.
That
was an historical meeting – Grand Master Gee shared with me a lot of
historical information, including the original name of the system, the
family tree, and many other things that were very exciting. GM Gee
treated
me to dinner and his students John Murphy and Matt Kwan gave me a tour
of
San Francisco. On that trip, I made note of the fact that this Wing
Chun
family exhibited great martial arts etiquette.

On my way back to Ohio, on the plane I ran into a well-known Wing Chun
instructor out of Sacramento, California. He asked me what I was doing
in
San Francisco and I told him about the research I did with GM Gee. His
next
response was quite shocking to me. He said, “Oh, yes. I’ve heard of
that
name. Robert Chu told me that this guy is combining his kung fu with
William
Cheung’s Wing Chun.” It was not until GM Gee and I got to know one
another
that the full story came out.

One day the topic of Robert Chu came up and GM Gee shared with me some
of
his interaction with Robert Chu. By that time, Robert Chu had told me
not to
trust Sifu Gee. It turned out that Robert Chu had also told Sifu Gee
not to
trust me. In fact, when Robert Chu met GM Gee it was an established
fact
that Robert tried to shame GM Gee’s students, said he wished he lived
in San
Francisco so he could learn under the Grand Master, and that the
students
didn’t know how lucky they were.

RC: This is all Master B's interpretation, my warning was how was it
that GG
practiced a form of WCK that looked like TWC - I felt I couldn't trust
that.
That was the point, as it is today. What is the truth behind the
similarity of HFY and TWC and where is the proof? BM, not knowing
TWC,
would think that it was something unique and new. I wished I lived in
SF so
I could research it more, because when I saw it - it looked like TWC to
me -
their SNT looks like TWC's; their Chum Kiu looks like TWC's the first
few
sections of the Muk Yan Jong looks like TWC's, the early logo, business
card, stances, 5 stages of combat, all look like TWC - someone is
lying
about the origins of their WCK - and since I studied with William
Cheung, I
don't think he is lying about Yip Man teaching him. And at the time,
when I
visited and our relations with GG was good, I did compliment his
students to
tell them how lucky they are to study with him (...if that was a
legitimate
system).

BM: Robert also spent a lot of his time with GM Gee bad-mouthing the
Moy Yat
family. GM Gee told me that when the two of us met, he had a very
negative
opinion about Moy Yat like he was one of the top bad Sifu ever, even
though
the two had never met. Over time, it became obvious that it was Robert
Chu
with the problem, not Moy Yat. Even while bad mouthing me personally on
the
internet, Robert was still calling GM Gee, asking to learn from the
Grand
Master.

RC: GG and I were friends back then. All before BM and the VTM were
involved . Of course, things were friendly back then. As a WCK
historian,
I want to know more about the truth. After spending more time with GG,
my
BS antenae kept popping up...this system looked too much like TWC. I
don't
feel it is an honest coincidence.

BM: There’s more to say but this post is getting long. I’ll have more
to say
on this later this week.

RC: More to say? About whom? How about saying why HFY looks like TWC
so
much? Go back to the real issue. Also this shows my character in
never
giving up, and only getting feedback, not failure in succeeding in
life.
There's no bad here. This is just one person's interpretation. As for
BM
and I, it's just a relationship which has fallen apart, just like
things
tyhat happen in real life. I hold onto no hatred. That was all past.

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD
chusauli@hotmail.com

www.chusaulei.com

From Alan

I hope that clears up this attack on my teacher.

We have now seen why HFY guys have these attachment problems. They learn this direct. Time to read my Chan (ZEN) guys

No need for reply - this is a statement to Benny

Alan Orr

www.alanorr.com

Jonathan_HFY_AZ

01-16-2007, 09:52 PM

Hello All,

I've been reading all of the comments back and fourth between the HFY guys (which I am one of) and the 'chu camp' for quite some time, and until now have tried to remained out of it mainly because I have never met Robert Chu or any but one of his guys. Without any first-hand knowledge how could I comment? Well, now I see what everyone is talking about, first hand.
This latest post digusts me. Robert Chu says that Benny Meng is insulting all WC lineages?? Does Robert even realize what he's said in his replies??

First he starts off and bad mouths Moy Yat and Lee Moy Shan both more than once, and very disgracefully at that. Using words like 'greedy', refering to one as a con man, calling them lyers, and getting even more personal: " At that time Lee was embroiled in another business, an affair, a crumbling marriage, and other things"
This is slanderous IMO. An affair? Is there proof? What 'other things'. I don;t know Robber Chu OR Mr. Lee, but reading this, it shows Robert Chu says whatever he feels about whoever he wants without regard for manners, concequence, or respect. This is just aweful. This goes right along with what people have been saying about Robert Chu, and only verifies the stories Master Meng has given us.

Robert then goes on to say "Moy Yat should have taken responsibility and taught the complete system". So now, he feels he should tell a MASTER how he should teach and conduct his afairs, someone Robert went to for knowledge. Who does Robert think he is? I think this speaks volumes for his character, and only solidifies many peoples views of him.

RC: " BM is trying to put a wedge between Rene and I here. How much
more silliness and pettiness do we see here? RR's WCK at the time was not
mature, lacking in body structure, structural alignment and vector
forces."
So, it seems that perhaps Robert might have said that RR's skills 'sucked' since he pretty much just backed it up with the above statement. Is Master Meng truely trying to put a wedge between RC and RR by stating an obvious fact? It was never denied that RC said RR sucked. The way I see it, Master Meng stated only what he heard, Robert just pretty much confirmed it. I'd say it's Robert's bad, not Master Mengs..
Makes me wonder who else Robert might have said sucks that he is now friends with.. Or how he talks about anyone he meets behind thier back.

Then I read on about Roberts observations regarding similarities he percieved between HFY and TWC. How some of HFY's forms LOOKED like TWC's, how thier buisness cards looked similar (hahaha, that's funny by the way - you can learn a lot about a kung fu system by looking at a buisness card!), 5 stages of combat 'look' like TWC's. So, what?? That's just surface level 'looks' - that says nothing of the knowledge either system holds! Many MANY WC lineages 'look' similar, but are vastly difference in application, concept, stance etc.
To me this is surface level stuff - you can't tell much about a system's concepts, structures, energies, etc from a 'picture' so-to-speak.

I have seen both SNT and Chum Kiu forms, dummy, etc. (HFY in person, TWC on video only) and I can see MANY differences, just from watching the TWC video (and in no way am I trying to say one is any better than the other with this statement). So now we all have two opinions. Doesn't mean Robert is right and I am wrong, just 2 opinions - No big deal... untill I read this:
"someone is lying about the origins of their WCK" "and since I studied with William Cheung, I don't think he is lying about Yip Man teaching him." then flooed up with "after spending more time with GG, my BS antenae kept popping up...this system looked too much like TWC. I don't feel it is an honest coincidence."
WHOAW!
Now Robert Chu is directly calling Grandmaster Gerret Gee a lyer in public! All based on some similarties he SAW in some of the forms, a BUISNESS CARD (haha), a logo etc?? And one concept he listed that as far as I know are not the same, admitted by both lineages???? Who is Robert Chu to call either of these Grandmasters Lyers, or either??? Is Robert Chu the end-all judge and verdict on what is ligitimate, 'real' WC, who is a lyer, who is teaching 'correctly, who is a con man, who lies about thier knowledge (GMG, Mr. Lee, Moy Yat, etc)??

Master Meng said: "Robert also spent a lot of his time with GM Gee bad-mouthing the Moy Yat family."
And obviously, that's been verified. Now he is bad mouthing more people. Now he is badmouthing Grandmaster Gerret Gee and calling him a lyer - someone Robert wanted to learn from on top of it all! This does not sound like the actions of someone with even a shred of respect, manners, dignity, etc. Sounds like the actions of a lowly street punk to me. (opinion of course)

I have heard and read many things about Robert Chu, and untill this point, everything to me were personal accounts and opinions (right or wrong) that I just put away in the back of my mind. Now I see there is verifiable evidence to all of these FACTS as I see them now. And I am sure I am not the only one that sees this. And they come directly from Robert's 'mouth'.

And Alan, you stand up for this guy?

Jonathan

EDIT: Rebert Said "Where is the proof that says Gee did not learn from William Cheung? HFY looks very much like TWC." What??? GMG should prove to who, Robert Chu, that he did not learn from GM Willaim Cheung?!?!?! WHY?? Because Robert saw some similarities?? What a joke!! Not everyone goes around stealing thier kung fu! Only someone that does such a think would asume GMG did the same. Speaks volumes about Roberts character (or lack of one)

Jonathan_HFY_AZ

01-16-2007, 10:29 PM

On another note:

Sorry for the prolonged New Year Politics. While I hate poiltics, it seems that sometimes it cannot be avoided. I also am starting to feel maybe Robert might not be worth the energy anyway, and maybe that is what he is after anyway.
But I also don't feel this 'round' of politics should go unanswered. I am sure I am not the only one that sees the source of the problem.
Happy New Year to all, and hopefully this will come to an end soon, one way or another.

Jonathan

An jie

01-16-2007, 10:55 PM

anerlich

01-16-2007, 11:19 PM

Robert Chu says that Benny Meng is insulting all WC lineages??

Actually, there's a case to be made that he did just that in Mastering Kung Fu when he and his co-authors dumped all lineages other than HFY and Jee Sim in a straw man basked called "Popular Wing Chun" and then stomped all over it. I'd resist the temptation to say he only left Chi Sim out because he might have had a hard time convincing Andreas to write the foreword otherwise, but of course I have no proof of that.

There are allegations he insulted TWC, my lineage, by saying it was 70% or 90% of HFY, but I won't bring those up as they are only hearsay :p

I've had some good email chats with Robert in the past, but he's never going to make much of a diplomat, not that I will either.

I am sure I am not the only one that sees the source of the problem.

Yeah, but we may have different opinions about who/what that is.

I don't see any WC saints wronged here. I do see a number of wannabee WC top guns whose egos are writing cheques their bodies can't cash.

In the words of Rodney King (no, not the Crazy Monkey Boxing guy), "can't we all just get along?"

anerlich

01-16-2007, 11:21 PM

Buddhism teaches that all things will work themselves out.

I guess the Buddha never went to Iraq, huh? Probably just as well he didn't do WC either - things might have been very different.

Gooseman

01-16-2007, 11:41 PM

In the ring is the decider.
In boxing or any functional activity the truth is decided by the winner.
Who's your money on CHu vs MEng.
Both chaps seem a little pathetic and too old to do much more than waffle trivial tripe at each other.
Yawn, then yawn again.
The Gooseman.

t_niehoff

01-17-2007, 12:31 AM

Wayfaring

01-17-2007, 01:33 AM

Just so you understand the background:

All of this started up again because Alan recently attended a Benny Meng seminar in the UK (where Benny was promoting the HFy oral tradition as "the true history of WCK"), and asked Benny face-to-face, man-to-man to put all the "negative energy" between HFY and CSL WCK behind us (he also asked Benny if what he was saying was fact or his opinion, and Benny finally admitted it was merely his opinion). A nice idea. At that point, with Alan standing before him, Benny agreed. Then he got back to the US, safely distant from Alan, and promptly broke his promise. Alan - and I - have tried on the HFY108 forum to get everyone on board with putting the past behind us, but Benny was nowhere to be found, and we encountered nothing but resistance. Still Benny said nothing; not an encouraging word. Nothing until very recently. And you can read his posts -- and the whole sordid mess -- for yourself.

Terence

Terence, safely distant from any practicing HFY member, above tries to give an account of the background of an event he didn't attend. Understandably, his account of the event is mostly BS.

It's interesting that one who pushes so hard for "independant verifiable evidence" can provide a supposedly accurate background based upon second-hand hearsay of an event. But hey, there's the double standard.

Alan did try to go on HFY108 and move forward. The "resistence" he met was because some HFY members are aware of the types of things his sifu Robert Chu has said in the past and told him Robert would need to apologize to move forward. Eventually all this resulted in Robert posting some not-so-hidden jabs at HFY on wingchunkuen forums. I personally enjoyed the "f@rt, f@rt" proverb there. It's great entertainment. And Robert telling us what he really thinks, above.

t_niehoff

01-17-2007, 02:40 AM

couch

01-17-2007, 04:54 AM

Too much politics = more horse stance

Buddhism teaches that all things will work themselves out.
When a crowd is having a conversation and all the sudden all of the people stop talking and yet there is one person still yelling, it is that individual that is deemed self important and self precious:D

And they will.

This type of stuff just drives the "underground guys" and anti-politics practicioners fa rther away.

I think I'll go practice my horse stance now!

All the best,
Kenton Sefcik

Wayfaring

01-17-2007, 06:44 AM

I notice you didn't say my account was untrue. ;) If you read the HFY108 forum, you'd see I rehashed what Alan said (who was there). And Benny didn't live up to his part. Because of that, the attempt at "peace" failed.

I say the same things to people's faces as I do when they aren't there. I use my real name on forums (don't hide behind pseudonyms), I'm in the phone book, so anyone can find me if they want to. Anyone can come play with us. I'll gladly say any of this to any HFY practitioner's face or anyone else because it is the truth.

FWIW, I don't claim to be highly skilled or knowledgeable -- certainly I don't call myself "master" ;) -- but I do get my ass kicked so much (in BJJ, MMA, WCK) that nothing intimidates me. :) That's the great thing about *martial arts*.

Terence

Mostly BS = untrue.

rehashed = spin doctored insinuating Benny Meng is afraid of Alan.

Attempt at peace failed = you and Alan acting like @sses on HFY108 when people suggested Robert needed to initiate peace attempts. I would say Alan started out with good intentions, but did not live up to his agreement regarding moving forward w/o negatives.

Master = simple term meaning your students have schools / students.

You not being highly skilled or knowledgeable = no argument from me.

Anyone can come play = same in virtually any HFY school. You don't have the corner on any markets getting beat up in MMA / BJJ / WCK envrionments.

Jeff Bussey

01-17-2007, 12:42 PM

Thanks for the entertainment guys. Keep it coming.
Some people get annoyed with this but I love it. What else am I going to do when I'm drinking my coffee.
Carry on.

J

Mr Punch

01-17-2007, 04:23 PM

So it is true that when men get old they return to their childhoods...? :rolleyes:

Bloody kids.

Alan Orr

01-18-2007, 01:16 AM

Hi Guys

This my teacher last reply to Benny. Its very boring for us to have to deal with this type of posting, but if Benny thinks its okay to post twisted threads we must add the other side to them.

I would rather we meet up and test our skills. I hope I will not have to post on this subject again. I tried to make things better between out groups, but that was just attacked. Best to leave it as it is and deal with thinks as men.

I have better things to do with my time.

Alan Orr

Reply for Robert Chu-

Benny Meng's small heartedness and low character has hit an all time
low,
showing the insecurities he has and lack of confidence. I can only
conjecture that he must hate me because he has a lack of skill which is
lower than me, which he refers to as "Phony Sifu X" (...in which he
couldn't
even spell "phony"). If I had no skill, how come he was bested, and
tossed
down so easily over 40 times? His hatred of me is very apparent and I
am
personally tired of this nonsense of going back and forth and putting
names
and lies out there. His hatred has polluted a good relationship I had
originally with the HFY family, and caused it to degrade to an all time
low.
Traditionally in the martial world when a student of a clan has acted
in
bad manner, he is expelled from the martial arts clan. In this way,
Benny
Meng should be expelled from the HFY family. He has no respect for me
as a
person or as a Sifu in the Martial arts world and I have suffered his
personal attacks on me quietly for many years, and taken insults from
people
I do not know, because of his bickering and continued tirade against me
with
his students. Is that a good example of a master? Spreading hatred?

Of the Moy Yat people I know, Master B is lacking as I know he did not
study
that long, nor was he around to train in sufficient skill with his Moy
Yat
training brothers. He was totally lacking in body structure and
couldn't
even stand in his stance properly. My 4 structure tests are an
objective
method of testing WCK core basics. If you can't pass them, your WCK
skill
is very, very low. Benny couldn't pass 3 of 4 tests! He was all
shoulder
power with no root. What a joke from a certified individual! When you
see
Henry Moy, John Chen, Mickey Chan or other seniors of the Moy Yat clan,
they
have real skill. I am grateful for the martial arts I learned from the
Moy
Yat family and remember the kindness from Henry Moy when he reviewed my
sets
and taught me the Luk Dim Boon Gwun and shared with me what he knew of
the
Baat Jaam Dao. I kept my word with my estranged Sifu Lee Moy Shan
when I
published Complete Wing Chun, and never used his name in all the years
I
taught, and I certainly acknowledged those seniors who helped me and
thanked
the Moy Yat family in the book. People in the Moy Yat clan do not have
any
favorable things to say about Benny and even wanted to expel him from
Moy
Yat's funeral. Also there are many issues of how he conducted himself
with
the chops, the museum and other issues. They are not news. People in
the
Moy Yat family know this for years about him.

I originally had no trouble with Garrett Gee and family. I still like
to
view HFY as separate from the VTM. I certainly have questions, and of
course, from rumor mouth Benny, they got twisted and distorted like his
thinking, just as he is spreading false lies and rumors now. One can
read
Mastering Kung Fu and know that the VTM was editorializing many things
and
used them as silly attacks to the entire WCK family. I am a small
local
martial artist, why does BM act like this? It is because he is
threatened
that the illusion he sells is at jeopardy. He has no real skills, and
Benny
is the "curator" of his own museum, and the information he has put out
is
faulty and without evidence. If HFY states that is all we have, don't
stretch - be objective, not biased. For this reason, he should also
step
down as curator of this VTM, as he is very biased. The material he
has put
out reeks of propaganda and is insulting to the WCK ancestors.

Garrett Gee told me once that Benny denied he was my student. I
thought
this was poor martial ettiquette. But knowing Benny's character, that
is
understandable. Basically, he is the cause for the ongoing Chu Sau Lei
family and HFY family conflict. I was originally a friend of HFY
(then
called Hung Suen) and insisted on their inclusion in Complete Wing Chun
and
even extended deadline dates. Garrett Gee has acknowledged me in the
recent
HFY history of getting known publically.

To bring up Andreas is also funny; Andreas Hoffman no longer teaches at
the
VTM or wants much to do with them. Must be BM's charming personality,
or is
it that everytime he taught you something, HFY (coincidentally) also
had the
same thing? Andreas has also said to me that HFY looks like TWC.

Hate shows Benny Meng has no Chan, despite all the words he says he is
cultivated. He is a poor example of a man with no honor. I know that
he
has painted me in a veil of distortion, and caused an entire Kung fu
clan to
rile up against me, and now we see he is trying to do more with false
rumors
and lies by mentioning other names. This shows what low character he
has.
Benny Meng, it is time to step down as "curator" and from your own ego
and
self importance - which I suspect is what "HFY Chan" is supposed to be
about. You demonstrate "head and mouth Chan" and you have no
cultivation.
You cannot even watch your mind, and be centered, which is what WCK
demands.

Want to challenge me? That's funny! You use martial arts for self
protection and defense, not to be an aggressor - or is that your
aggression
comes from the delusions, hate and greed in your mind? That's the
Shaolin
way? I happily accept your challenge. Come to my school in Los
Angeles
Chinatown, 818 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA this Saturday, January
20,
2007 at 8 am. We can have our match and video it and put it on
Youtube.com.

Benny boasts (which again is funny as he is a "Master B") about besting
my
students? That's a good laugh too! The class was mostly beginners
(less
than a year!) and says nothing of a couple of my semiors (with less
than 3
years experience) who threw him about effortlessly (who at that time
had
about 10 years experience in WCK)! I guess distance learning is not
as
good as hands on. I guess we really know who the phony is. My words
at
the end were in jest - as Master B was wholeheartedly accepted in the
family. People who don't know me well, I guess they do not understand
my
sense of humor. It's all fine! To have to explain it ruins the joke.

I'm still looking for independent verifiable proof about HFY beyond
Garrett
Gee, as is the rest of the WCK/VT family. All this smoke and mirrors,
but
still not one answer of the truth. If HFY is independently verifiable,
I
would extend my public apologies in writing and kowtow to your master,
but
as I see it, basically you're full of ****! ****! :)

Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD
chusauli@hotmail.com

www.chusaulei.com

Chango

01-18-2007, 04:55 AM

I will let Robert Chu's forked tongue do most of the talking!! LOL!

RC- The Chu family is descended from the Ming Dynasty

*Robert where is your pedigree?? Come on man lets see verifiable proof! LOL!

RC- It is common in Chinese culture to "Pien Lo Fan" or "Pien Gwai Lo"

* I guess this is your point of view on what is "common in Chinese culture" LOL! Do you read what your write? I think we call it the pot calling the kettle etc...

RC-Traditionally in the martial world when a student of a clan has acted in bad manner, he is expelled from the martial arts clan.

* Robert please tell us more about "the martial world" It's clear you are a ******* child of many lineages.

RC-When you see Henry Moy, John Chen, Mickey Chan or other seniors of the Moy Yat clan, they have real skill. I am grateful for the martial arts I learned from the Moy Yat family and remember the kindness from Henry Moy when he reviewed my sets and taught me the Luk Dim Boon Gwun and shared with me what he knew of the Baat Jaam Dao.

RC-“The hatred I have towards the Moy Yat family
fueled my energy to continue to study Wing Chun.”

*Do I need to add anything?

RC- I kept my word with my estranged Sifu Lee Moy Shan
when I published Complete Wing Chun, and never used his name in all the years I taught, and I certainly acknowledged those seniors who helped me and thanked the Moy Yat family in the book.

*Did you list what "fueled your energy" in the book? LOL!

RC- Sure, which I used to channel my energy constructively

*It's clear you are misguided and should not be taken seriously.
:rolleyes:

anerlich

01-18-2007, 05:53 AM

Robert please tell us more about "the martial world" It's clear you are a ******* child of many lineages.

What's the down side? Is that an iinsult or compliment?

Many people have had to switch instructors, even change styles, due to no fault of their own. And some because they have the opportunity to see "the martial world" through more than one instructor's eyes.

Benny's been around a few blocks himself, and probably deserves the mantle as much as Robert does.

FWIW, I too am a ******* child, and proud of (most of) my various MA teachers.

It's clear you are misguided and should not be taken seriously.

Only a few people are taking any of this seriously. You, unforunately, seem to be one of them!:p

Ultimatewingchun

01-18-2007, 06:12 AM

Man...you guys should either slug it out or shut up. This is really getting ugly. :rolleyes:

canglong

01-18-2007, 06:28 AM

Many people have had to switch instructors, even change styles, due to no fault of their own. That is perfectly understandable but that is not the case in this particular instance.Only a few people are taking any of this seriously. You, unforunately, seem to be one of them!Anerlich, Serious is a natural knee jerk response when others try to make light of your sifu no one should be faulted for that. Chango is a warrior in every sense of the word and as such he understands sometimes diplomacy must be delivered by a good foot soldier. Chango also being one of the few people around for all or most of the things in question on this thread brings true experience to his post that others only wish they could.

Chango

01-18-2007, 06:31 AM

Many people have had to switch instructors, even change styles, due to no fault of their own. And some because they have the opportunity to see "the martial world" through more than one instructor's eyes.

Point well missed. The point was that he has no idea about Mo duk or the "martial world" if he has never been anything but a disrespectful derlick student. Having never moved beyond being a casual student. :cool:

I have always been encouraged by my Sifu to be a student of all martial arts. Showing healthy respect for all martial arts. :p

Terence,
Did I just read this correct? did you just brag about getting your A$$ kicked? LOL! I think it's common knowlege that if you are learning MMA, BJJ, etc... that you get yours handed to you while doing so. But I think everyone here already knows that. ( I could be wrong) So I don't think bragging about that aspect really accomplishes anything! W.T.F I don't think this thread has accomplished anything. So here we go again. :D

anerlich

01-18-2007, 06:34 AM

Chango is a warrior in every sense of the word and as such he understands sometimes diplomacy must be delivered by a good foot soldier.

Sounds pretty much exactly what Alan was doing.

Like Victor said, this is getting worse than any of the previous b!tchfests alone similar lines. Much more than a $5 bet on the line here.

canglong

01-18-2007, 06:37 AM

Man...you guys should either slug it out or shut up. This is really getting ugly.Victor,
When Alan Orr asked the question that you knew would lead down this path and you had every opportunity not to answer and fall prey to his lead you chose not to. Now your own thread is the benefactor of your own unwillingness to "shut up" you are hardly in a position to ask others to do something you yourself were incapable of doing.

canglong

01-18-2007, 06:41 AM

Sounds pretty much exactly what Alan was doing.Yeah pretty much except as a long distance student he didn't experience these things in person like Chango.

anerlich

01-18-2007, 06:42 AM

Point well missed.

Opinon noted. *yawn*

Liddel

01-18-2007, 07:46 AM

From an outsider that has no bias at all in this matter,
From a human being and not a martial artist - this is a liitle ridiculous guys -

Let it lay, be happy with what you have.

samson818

01-18-2007, 08:05 AM

All these Wing Chun Boxers and no Gong Sau matches yet.

junmo

01-18-2007, 08:39 AM

I with Mr Bussey - this makes for great reading when I'm meant to be working - kinda like the Bold and the Beautiful but more eloquent. :D

t_niehoff

01-18-2007, 03:44 PM

Terence,
Did I just read this correct? did you just brag about getting your A$$ kicked? LOL! I think it's common knowlege that if you are learning MMA, BJJ, etc... that you get yours handed to you while doing so. But I think everyone here already knows that. ( I could be wrong) So I don't think bragging about that aspect really accomplishes anything! W.T.F I don't think this thread has accomplished anything. So here we go again. :D

No brag intended, Chango, just stating the truth. And I'll tell you another truth: so is anyone and everyone who is out there really fighting, they get hit, choked out, submitted, tapped, and every other thing you can think of done to them. Even the best. Go visit the Militech camp sometime. So if you aren't getting your ass kicked, you aren't fighting. End of story. That's the nature of the game we play. Without the punishment, there is no real development. And no real knowledge.

I pointed this out because if you are used to this, if this is your routine, challenges or intimidation become meaningless to you. And your perspective on things is very different from those who don't. For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better.

Terence

Ultimatewingchun

01-18-2007, 05:47 PM

First of all, Tony...when I said "you guys" I was referring to Robert Chu and Benny Meng....and btw...the last time I looked - I'm a sihing to one of them in the Moy Yat lineage and an uncle to the other one in the same lineage. (Robert mentioned Henry Moy, John Cheng, and Mickey Chan...perhaps you should inquire as to what these 3 men thought/think about my wing chun knowledge and abilities - as I came up through the system with the 3 of them at the same time...and spent many hours/years working out with them).

So I'll say whatever I want about that.

As to your other remarks about how I should "have known better"...yadda,yadda...

Who says I have some obligation NOT TO GIVE MY OPINION ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES BETWEEN TWC AND HFY???

....you?

LOL.

And furthermore....go back and read my post carefully - as I purposely did not add any fuel to the fire by speculating out loud what I REALLY think the relationship between the two systems probably is. Trust me...it would make you cringe in your seat.

So let it go, Tony. Let it go.

leejunfan

01-18-2007, 06:57 PM

passing_through

01-18-2007, 08:13 PM

Just so you understand the background

Alan came to hfy108.com and asked some questions. Some discussion ensued. People started to get to know each other/feel each other out (which should have been anticipated given the history of Robert Chu and HFY). Disagreements ensued. The past came back to the present... and then Robert Chu posted a poorly veiled re-hash of his insinuations about HFY on rene's website (where it seems that HFY people can't sign on). Not sure why Robert did what he did ... But that's the background of "this" current situation, based on years of history... It's a shame that Alan and Master Meng were working to make things smoother and then Alan's own instructor undermind those efforts.

To see what Robert is trying to get out from under, go here (http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=1932&perpage=15&pagenumber=6) (starts in the 2nd post on page 6 of the thread).

It's funny to see Robert trying to play the humble guy when he's so strongly opinionated about everything. I guess GM Gee and GM Hoffmann couldn't see Robert for who he was... according to Robert, Master Meng's the reason his relationships were strained... to see the other side, hit that link above. As for Robert having a good relationship with GM Gee... that's Robert's opinion. Doesn't mean it was reality.

And Ternace, For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better

I think it would be obvious that the meaning and implication of "master" and "grand master" can have a different connotations in different contexts... but I guess that's too high-falootin' a type of thinkin' fer some of "da f1gh+r5" out there.

However, agreed that there is a time and place for hand-on exchange with little limitations... but that's just training methodology... big whoop. hundreds or thousands of years of history, tradition, and etiquette... just junk it all because because... getting rid of social mores for no other reason that to get rid of them certainly worked for the hippies, too. There's a difference between Tradition and Convention... free exchange is part of Tradition. What passes for most martial arts is Convention. Tradition is alive and changes with each generation while simultaneously maintaining a timeless practicality to it; it force you to face reality. Convention clings to dead and empty ritual, providing a buffer from dealing with reality. Check out Thomas Merton some time.

reneritchie

01-18-2007, 09:14 PM

Jeremy wrote:

"where it seems that HFY people can't sign on"

Anyone and everyone is welcome on http://www.wingchunkuen.com/

It's an automated process, you just fill out the form and hit send, and an email is returned to you from the server with an activation link. Be sure to check your spam settings/folder to make sure you're not missing it.

If anyone has any trouble whatsoever, just leave me a PM and I'll personally make them an account right away.

Looking forward to seeing your posts!

passing_through

01-18-2007, 09:56 PM

Everyone is free to believe what they want but when you start to go out of your way to directly accuse others of lying and intentionally misleading people, that says a lot about your character.

Remember, all the politics started in 2007 with Robert Chu.

To bring up Andreas is also funny; Andreas Hoffman no longer teaches at the VTM or wants much to do with them.

Guess Robert is out of the loop on this one... Master Meng and GM Hoffmann (note spelling) have a good relationship and communicate on a fairly regular basis.

Andreas has also said to me that HFY looks like TWC.

Interesting... but…

According to the VTM, all Wing Chun comes from the Southern Shaolin Temple. Therefore, it would make sense that Hung Fa Yi, Traditional Wing Chun, and Chi Sim Weng Chun all share similarities in a certain way. But each family also preserves a unique identity. For example, Chi Sim and HFY maintain Kiu Sau. TWC doesn't have Kiu Sau. HFY and TWC maintain Chi Sau. Chi Sim doesn't have Chi Kiu. These aren't different words for bridging exercises either. Each term represents a different category of training for specific parts of the body, specific tactics and strategies, and specific ranges. By analogy, they are different types of engines. A Battleship engine is different from a Tank engine is different from an Airplane engine is different from a Submarine engine. The laws of physics apply to each the same, they are made of (mostly) the same types of parts and materials, but each has unique, specific requirements best suited to the environment in which it operates. So quoting GM Hoffmann as saying that HFY and TWC are similar doesn't mean a whole lot. What's the context in which he is referring? It's possible that he meant from a Kiu Sau perspective. Robert’s quote doesn’t give the context of it so it can be misleading to the uninformed.

The situation is like math. Any kid can learn + and - and the numbers 1-10. Algebra has + and - and the numbers 1-10 but they are used differently. Same with calculus: same parts but different use. Robert's kinda like a kid... sure there's similarities between basic math, algebra, and calculus but is a kid learning basic math qualified to talk about the distinctions between all three? Using Algebra won't build you an airplane. You need more specific training. Robert likes to talk about letting application be your Sifu. If application is all he’s working with, he’s set a very low standard for himself and his students. Trial and error is a long way to go to get anywhere. And for Robert, it didn't seem to work too well: his own Sifu disowned him, his Sigung said his skill was lacking, GM Cheung said Robert didn't understand basic Wing Chun concepts (like one hand can trap two), and GM Hoffmann totally owned Robert in free Kiu Sau. For someone who likes to tear down others, he certainly doesn't have very far to fall himself.

Again, everyone is free to believe what they want. But Robert Chu takes thing a step ****her, making personal attacks. Saying you agree with 'this' or 'that' is fine too. But saying that this instructor is the king of whatever takes things too far. It's the lowest form of character. What is Robert Chu really about? He openly criticized HFY as not being Wing Chun – he’s done the same with Chi Sim… Robert’s even felt the need to “quality check” a recognized instructor like Sifu David Peterson. Robert collected information from GM Hoffmann to write an article on Chi Sim and promote the lineage, that article still hasn't materialized, but in the meantime Robert – who had the gall to tell GM Hoffmann that Hoffmann’s own instructors mistranslated the 18 Kiu Sau and wrote the “correct” translations – started teaching some of the Chi Sim information as his own without giving credit to the Chi Sim family under the Chu Sau Lei name. He's not much of an expert, is he? On the other hand, the VTM openly acknowledged its relationship with GM Hoffmann, promoted several workshops, helped to produce a DVD, and continued to maintain a friendly relationship. I can't speak for Robert's relationship with GM Hoffmann so I won’t.

People are seeing one side of things. Can you see both sides? Robert’s students are welcome to see the tape… but be careful. What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that? Anyone can make up a rumor… at one time Robert Chu called HFY a cult but Alan Orr’s the one with Chu's name tattooed on his body.

The current situation is not about lineage, skill, or history… it’s about the lack of character in one person: Robert Chu. Robert’s been free to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants when he wants… and now the consequences of those actions are coming out.

anerlich

01-18-2007, 10:36 PM

Yeah pretty much except as a long distance student he didn't experience these things in person like Chango.

BFD.

Chango has as much right as anyone else to fling sh!t at his or his seniors' percieved enemies. As he's pointed out to me on a few occasions, it's a public forum, everyone has a right to post what they want.

This behaviour makes him no better or worse than any of the other parties involved.

But the sh!t-flinging behaviour makes your assertions of any special claims he has to warriorhood or any other claims to some sort of noble aim patently ridiculous.

Give up the hero worship. You sound like an eight year old.

Ultimatewingchun

01-18-2007, 11:30 PM

Aaaaaahhhh, YES...

I just love the smell of napalm in the morning! :eek: :cool:

(Robert Duvall in "Apocalyse Now"). :D

Wayfaring

01-18-2007, 11:31 PM

No brag intended, Chango, just stating the truth. And I'll tell you another truth: so is anyone and everyone who is out there really fighting, they get hit, choked out, submitted, tapped, and every other thing you can think of done to them. Even the best. Go visit the Militech camp sometime. So if you aren't getting your ass kicked, you aren't fighting. End of story. That's the nature of the game we play. Without the punishment, there is no real development. And no real knowledge.

As much as I think Terence is full of it mostly, I agree with this and can relate to it. And although I don't live in the midwest, visiting MFS and getting tapped by Matt Hughes and Robbie Lawler sounds like a d@mn good time!

I pointed this out because if you are used to this, if this is your routine, challenges or intimidation become meaningless to you. And your perspective on things is very different from those who don't. For example, if you really fight, you won't go around calling yourself "master" or "grandmaster" -- you'll know better.

Terence

Why don't you tell that to "Professor" Carlson Gracie? And if you think challenges and intimidation aren't in MMA, then I'd question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.

t_niehoff

01-18-2007, 11:47 PM

Everyone is free to believe what they want but when you start to go out of your way to directly accuse others of lying and intentionally misleading people, that says a lot about your character.

What does it say about character when a person goes around spreading HFY oral history as "the truth" or "the true history of wing chun" when they know they have no real evidence -- evidence that is independently verifiable -- to support those claims?

What is that saying about people who live in glass houses? ;)

According to the VTM, all Wing Chun comes from the Southern Shaolin Temple.

THEN WHY DON'T YOU PROVE WITH INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TTHAT HFY EXISTED PRIOR TO GARRETT GEE? If you can't prove your lineage back one generation, how can you say it goes back to the Shaolin Temple? LOL!

Therefore, it would make sense that Hung Fa Yi, Traditional Wing Chun, and Chi Sim Weng Chun all share similarities in a certain way. But each family also preserves a unique identity. For example, Chi Sim and HFY maintain Kiu Sau. TWC doesn't have Kiu Sau. HFY and TWC maintain Chi Sau. Chi Sim doesn't have Chi Kiu. These aren't different words for bridging exercises either. Each term represents a different category of training for specific parts of the body, specific tactics and strategies, and specific ranges. By analogy, they are different types of engines. A Battleship engine is different from a Tank engine is different from an Airplane engine is different from a Submarine engine. The laws of physics apply to each the same, they are made of (mostly) the same types of parts and materials, but each has unique, specific requirements best suited to the environment in which it operates. So quoting GM Hoffmann as saying that HFY and TWC are similar doesn't mean a whole lot. What's the context in which he is referring? It's possible that he meant from a Kiu Sau perspective. Robert’s quote doesn’t give the context of it so it can be misleading to the uninformed.

First of all, your explanation for these various *drills* or exercises isn't correct IMO. Second, the "fact" that a branch of WCK has or doesn't have some drill does not prove relationships -- you only prove lineage by proving lineage. Branches can "adopt" drills from other unrelated lienages (for example, HFY could have taken kiu sao from chi sim, which seems likely since it is not mentioned by HFY until fater the VTM's association with Hoffman) or drop drills from their syllabus and still be realted.

The situation is like math. Any kid can learn + and - and the numbers 1-10. Algebra has + and - and the numbers 1-10 but they are used differently. Same with calculus: same parts but different use. Robert's kinda like a kid... sure there's similarities between basic math, algebra, and calculus but is a kid learning basic math qualified to talk about the distinctions between all three? Using Algebra won't build you an airplane. You need more specific training. Robert likes to talk about letting application be your Sifu. If application is all he’s working with, he’s set a very low standard for himself and his students. Trial and error is a long way to go to get anywhere. And for Robert, it didn't seem to work too well: his own Sifu disowned him, his Sigung said his skill was lacking, GM Cheung said Robert didn't understand basic Wing Chun concepts (like one hand can trap two), and GM Hoffmann totally owned Robert in free Kiu Sau. For someone who likes to tear down others, he certainly doesn't have very far to fall himself.

I don't speak for Robert or for anyone but myself, but IMHO all there is is application, the rest is BS. If you think application is such a "low standard" then please by all means show us "the good stuff" in action.

Again, everyone is free to believe what they want. But Robert Chu takes thing a step ****her, making personal attacks. Saying you agree with 'this' or 'that' is fine too. But saying that this instructor is the king of whatever takes things too far. It's the lowest form of character. What is Robert Chu really about? He openly criticized HFY as not being Wing Chun – he’s done the same with Chi Sim… Robert’s even felt the need to “quality check” a recognized instructor like Sifu David Peterson. Robert collected information from GM Hoffmann to write an article on Chi Sim and promote the lineage, that article still hasn't materialized, but in the meantime Robert – who had the gall to tell GM Hoffmann that Hoffmann’s own instructors mistranslated the 18 Kiu Sau and wrote the “correct” translations – started teaching some of the Chi Sim information as his own without giving credit to the Chi Sim family under the Chu Sau Lei name. He's not much of an expert, is he? On the other hand, the VTM openly acknowledged its relationship with GM Hoffmann, promoted several workshops, helped to produce a DVD, and continued to maintain a friendly relationship. I can't speak for Robert's relationship with GM Hoffmann so I won’t.

I find it ironic that for people who seem so concerned about "personal attacks" that this is all we get from you. ;)

I suppose you have studied with Robert to know what he teaches as part of his CSL WCK curriculum? Hmm? No? I guess he must be holding out all the chi sim stuff on us that train with him.

People are seeing one side of things. Can you see both sides? Robert’s students are welcome to see the tape… but be careful. What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that? Anyone can make up a rumor… at one time Robert Chu called HFY a cult but Alan Orr’s the one with Chu's name tattooed on his body.

The current situation is not about lineage, skill, or history… it’s about the lack of character in one person: Robert Chu. Robert’s been free to say whatever he wants about whomever he wants when he wants… and now the consequences of those actions are coming out.

Just because people say negative things doesn't mean the things they say are untrue. ;) There is an easy way to counter people who say negative things about HFY -- provide independently verifiable evidence that what you say is indeed truthful. It's really simple. The complaints about "character" are only a dodge -- a way to stir things up to distract people from the real issue: FHY/VTM's utter lack of independently verifiable evidence to support most of their claims.

Question: where is the independently verifiable evidence that HFY existed prior to Gee or that Wang Ming existed and was skilled in WCK?

Answer: That snake, Robert Chu! Let me tell you this is all his fault, he's just trying to . . . blah, blah, blah.

Terence

Savi

01-19-2007, 03:04 AM

Terence, the one thing all your input is lacking is information. Without information all your logic flow can't connect. There are a few points you are missing, or seem to not understand because of your fixation on "things". I'll just point out two of them:

1. without learning HFY or Chi Sim - your perspective and analysis is very shallow. The Chi Sim Kiu Sau and HFY Kiu Sau are not the same at all. I am no expert on Chi Sim, but I have played with its Kiu Sau and I am quite aware on the nature of HFY's many Kiu Sau categories. I have learned enough of both to know they are very different. In other words: THEY ARE NOT THE SAME, nor are they borrowed or reguritated from one another. You can't say the same, now can you? Your presumption on the Kiu Sau matter doesn't mean a whole lot cuz of your lack of experience in this matter. Robert's opinion on the Kiu Sau topic is also severely lacking in research.

and this is the BIG point:

2. in the case of Robert Chu, I highly doubt that (considering his history of interactions with other kung fu Sifu, and unscrupulous sense for etiquette) he deserves anything from HFY at all. So demand all you want about "INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE" until your head pops off. A bank won't approve a loan to someone with a terrible credit history, and Robert's got a few bankruptcies.

Terence, since when did you become such a knowledgeable expert on all Wing Chun? Hanging around Hendrik too much are you?

TWC = HFY ; NO
KIU SAU = CHI KIU = CHI SAU ; NO

But I'm sure this won't register with you.

anerlich

01-19-2007, 03:41 AM

Why don't you tell that to "Professor" Carlson Gracie?

Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.

leejunfan

01-19-2007, 06:02 AM

Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.

DOH!!!! LOL!!!!!! :p

Nick Forrer

01-19-2007, 11:29 AM

Why don't you tell that to "Professor" Carlson Gracie? .

Professor is the portugese word for teacher. It means the same as Sensei in Japanese. Its not a grandiose unsubstantiated title like 'Master'.

And if you think challenges and intimidation aren't in MMA, then I'd question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.

Sure they go on. But unlike in WC people actually go through with them rather than mouth off on the internet ad nauseum.

Nick Forrer

01-19-2007, 11:43 AM

2. in the case of Robert Chu, I highly doubt that (considering his history of interactions with other kung fu Sifu, and unscrupulous sense for etiquette) he deserves anything from HFY at all. So demand all you want about "INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE" until your head pops off. A bank won't approve a loan to someone with a terrible credit history, and Robert's got a few bankruptcies.

Robert seems to be voicing the same concerns that any right thinking critical indivdiual without an agenda have when opinions are presented as indisputable facts (that WC comes from the southern shaolin temple, that HFY preserves that WC in its pure unadulterated form today as it was then, and that all other wc is diluted and watered down).

At the very least HFY seems to suffer from the same problem as TWC namely how come it looks nothing like the other lineages from China e.g. Gulao, YKS, Cheung Bo, Leung Jan etc. All of which use narrow pigeon toed horses and favour a more back weighted stance.

All of the personal attacks seem to me an attempt to divert attention away from the real issues raised. A classic case of 'if you cant attack the argument you have to attack the credibility of the person saying it'. The most absurd seems to be that he charged 1000 dollars for lessons. I make that 100 dollars an hour for 10 hours. Whats the BFD? Thats about the going rate for private lessons (albeit at the pricier end of the market).

anerlich

01-19-2007, 01:45 PM

What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that?

It's almost a requirement to be a WC practitioner. For example, a considerable number of Benny's posts on hfy108. And trash talking by all and sundry on here.

The TWC, my lineage, grandmaster is the king of lineage bashers, although Benny seems to be trying real hard to catch up, though I doubt he'd have the stones to openly put his lineage above all others at a VTAA conference like William Cheung did.

Do I like it? Not really. Can I accept it? **** Yeah. He's just another egotist who can't help himself. Lot of that in MA. He's no saint, but **** he can fight. Only fools take all that mouth boxing seriously. Or walk a linguistic tightrope that says their Sifu's trashtalking isn't, when any fool can see that it is.

And yes, William Cheung got ambushed. 1986. Then, we had Mazza/Draheim in 1996. That was initiated by trash talking on usenet (can you spell "deja vu"?). Both Emin and Draheim later admitted they had allowed themself to be used by their seniors and apologised for that. Anyone considering "defending their Sifu's honour" in this latest downward spiral in 2007 (it should be once every decade or thereabouts, so we might even be a little overdue) needs to ensure they do not ignore the lessons of history, and that they too do not allow themselves to be used or drawn into what will be seen later as one of the nadirs of WC. Yeah, you'll get famous ... for all the wrong reasons.

You're not a warrior monk trained by some WC saint, you're just another loser on the web. Face it. Get a life.

anerlich

01-19-2007, 01:47 PM

And if you think challenges and intimidation aren't in MMA, then I'd question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.

Pro boxing and pro wrestling would wither up and die without it. That's hardly revelatory.

Wayfaring

01-19-2007, 02:19 PM

Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.

Excuses, excuses ;) :D

Wayfaring

01-19-2007, 02:24 PM

Pro boxing and pro wrestling would wither up and die without it. That's hardly revelatory.

Right - the point being that Terence is somehow promoting that if you are a real fighter somehow you reach this nirvana point where none of that ever matters, and you drift along in the clouds serenely getting tapped out by Helio's floating head and doing the two-step with Pat Miletich.

Wayfaring

01-19-2007, 02:30 PM

Professor is the portugese word for teacher. It means the same as Sensei in Japanese. Its not a grandiose unsubstantiated title like 'Master'.

If you think that 'Professor' isn't a grandiose title, then I'd say put down what you're smoking.

leejunfan

01-19-2007, 02:37 PM

Nick Forrer

01-19-2007, 03:24 PM

If you think that 'Professor' isn't a grandiose title, then I'd say put down what you're smoking.

Its portugese...it translates as 'teacher'...it doesnt have the same meaning as it does in English i.e. head of a university faculty....so no its not a grandiose title...unlike master.

Do I have to explain it again or did it sink in that time?

Wayfaring

01-19-2007, 03:29 PM

Guys,

Don't start bashing Terence because he promotes real training. The FACT.... if you want to be able to say that you can TRULY defend yourself then you have to KNOW you can from EXPERIENCE in non-compliant hard training. If all you do is Chi Sau, SLT and some light WC vs WC "sparring" you are not truly testing yourself. Use your heads! WCK is the "thinking persons" art which I would think intelligent people with even small levels of common sense would know that you "Train how you fight, fight how you train." If you aren't training with the intensity of a Miletich, Gracie or your basic boxing gym then what the heck are you doing and who do you think you're fooling?

Come on WCK'ers..... less talk, more do..... in other words Mo Gong Kau, Gong Sau! peace out :cool:

Don't misread me here. I am not bashing Terence becuase he promotes "alive" training. I agree with him. Although he is a bit too much on the SPAR.....derrrrr......SPAR.....drooolll......SPAR side and thinks that will both produce skill and promote world peace, he is a known entity on that extreme side that is probably necessary to balance out a WCK world that has been too filled with the attitude exactly you're talking about.

However, when it comes to history, I do not agree with him or many on this forum. I think that there is a double standard with this "independantly verifiable evidence" talk. I think there are plenty of WCK lineages that have far less REAL evidence than you think. Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say "what does that prove?" and "there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from". TWC has an unsubstantiated history that GM Cheung presents, but he has nowhere near the amount of mouth-breathing going on about that you see here. Many other lines have far less to go on than a couple pictures and stories.

I get that a lot of this is backlash from the MKF book presenting a certain viewpoint on history and doing some contrasting to "Popular WC". (Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you're referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages). However, I've heard VTM presentations on history a number of times, and I've never heard anything like presenting it like absolute fact - more like "this is what we think based upon research". The research done if you look at it really isn't a whole lot different from other types of lineage research (anthropology based). There are artifacts, hands-on exchanges to look for sets, training methods, concepts (terms), systems. And there's some filling in of the gaps, just like you would read in any book that is about lineages or groups of people we don't know a whole lot about (like the Native Americans of 1000-1400AD in North America). In general, MKF is a more detailed thorough handling of WCK than I've seen out there published. Maybe there are more people out there doing research too - good, the more the better. The fewer the historians you have the less complete a picture you have.

There seems to be a group outside of HFY that has run into a Hung Suen WCK group that was trained by GM Gee's sihing in China or HK. Instead of anyone asking Firehawk where he heard about this, instantly we have demands for "provide the address of the school" or it's not "independantly verifiable". Sheesh - with all you mouth-breathers out there, if I did have "independantly verifiable evidence" type artifacts personally, I'd keep them away from you drooling on them for general principles. There are photos mentioned, and probably "indoor" artifacts that won't be made public. I think MKF has phrases from a kuen kuit recorded in it that are unique. At this point, we don't know much about the Hung Suen group at all.

Wayfaring

01-19-2007, 03:44 PM

Its portugese...it translates as 'teacher'...it doesnt have the same meaning as it does in English i.e. head of a university faculty....so no its not a grandiose title...unlike master.

Do I have to explain it again or did it sink in that time?

Dude - whatever. Sifu is a similar term literally. However, "Professor" is used by the Brazilians over is it 5th degree BB or something? It's spelled in English, not Portugese (sifu is not an English word). So when someone sees it on a BJJ web site, do you think it's not marketing related or calculated to sound grandiose?

Master is a term distinguishing some sifu from others who have been teaching longer and have students that are sifus. GM is usually the lineage holder. In WCK pretty much all the lineages that have an organization use that term. Some, like TWC, have actual rankings with that title "provisional master", "master", etc.

It's just a traditional martial art thing versus a modern martial art thing.

Ultimatewingchun

01-19-2007, 04:43 PM

Good post, Wayfaring.

............

And Andrew.....jeez...this is friggin' hilarious:

"You're not a warrior monk trained by some WC saint, you're just another loser on the web. Face it. Get a life."

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! :D

Ultimatewingchun

01-19-2007, 04:57 PM

Will make this post here (even though it also pertains to a different current thread).

THERE'S WAAAAY TOO MUCH "talk" about history, about lineages, about who's a Master and who's a nobody, etc.

Let your hands and feet do the talking.

As I posted on the other thread - I don't have the time anymore to organize a wing chun tournament venue, due to other commitments - but I certainly would support one/train students to participate/attend the event myself as a spectator.

BUT WE NEED AN ONGOING SPARRING TOURNAMENT VENUE...in order to keep things HONEST.

Isn't that what this is really all about? All these internet wars...occasional once-every-ten-year flareups, etc. It's about the fact that without having to SHOW what you can do on a fairly regular basis (ie.- organized SPARRING tournaments that occur say every 4 to 6 months)...

it's just too easy for people to PLAY GAMES with other people's heads.

And then all the "alleged" Masters, Sifus, Experts, Curators, etc. will be exposed - and those who really deserve to have "titles" and get respect will do so.

Hendrik

01-19-2007, 05:27 PM

Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say "what does that prove?" and "there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from".

What do you mean by

"there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from?"

Evidentally,

1, the YiK Kam SLT Kuen Kuit and moves which was posted matches with the Fujian White Crane Weng Chun clasical writing before 1850. Also if one is interested in it one could check with the Fujian's White Crane Weng Chun authority masters such as Li Kang in HongKong, PAn Sifu of Fujian.

2 ,the YiK Kam SLT Kuen Kuit and moves which was posted has been presented by Jim to the Gate Holder of Emei 12 Zhuang, or GM Fu. and got acknowledge it is Emei's components, in additional to it matches with the Emei 12 Zhuang's writing.

So, the White Crane of Fujian and The Emei (snake) has been contatcted directly to the sources to varify the likely or possibility of the proposal by Yik Kam's Kuen Kuit and writing. The Crane from Fujian and Snake from Emei. and They got varified. and the Answer is it is very very very very very very very Likely. That is how the SLT got invented by fusing the White Crane of the Fujian and "Snake" of Emei.
BTW. Cho family and YKS family also share the same history view.

Thus, the kuen kuit, the history could be varified within WCK and outside of WCK.
Not to mention, the involvement of Yik Kam WCK in 1850 uprising also was could be varified in the history of Lee Man Mao and the Shang Hai uprising which still has evidents sit in the Dien Chun Dang of Shang hai today.

Now, that is how specific we have gone.

Now, looking at the Shao Lin proposal. Tell us which Shao Lin as specific as the above research? Tell us who in Shao Lin which authority masters could give endosement to the proposal and confirm SLT is a creation of shao lin elements ?

Show us? otherwise, what you propose is a theory without evidents.

See, I am not challenging anyone but willing to examine every possibility. However, in the mission of research, one has to rely on track able sources and evidents instead of speculate and then called that a truth.

In the mean time, my concern about Shao Lin theory is can anyone even identify which Shao Lin? Where? and what components? if not, how could one make conclusion on "others is "popular" and "I am the....."?

Doesnt make sense.

Peace

t_niehoff

01-19-2007, 05:28 PM

Don't misread me here. I am not bashing Terence becuase he promotes "alive" training. I agree with him. Although he is a bit too much on the SPAR.....derrrrr......SPAR.....drooolll......SPAR side and thinks that will both produce skill and promote world peace, he is a known entity on that extreme side that is probably necessary to balance out a WCK world that has been too filled with the attitude exactly you're talking about.

I can accept that criticism -- although not the part about world peace ;) -- and it can seem that is all I think anyone should ever do. Of course, there is more to training than sparring but that stuff gets enough attention already.

However, when it comes to history, I do not agree with him or many on this forum. I think that there is a double standard with this "independantly verifiable evidence" talk. I think there are plenty of WCK lineages that have far less REAL evidence than you think. Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say "what does that prove?" and "there's no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from". TWC has an unsubstantiated history that GM Cheung presents, but he has nowhere near the amount of mouth-breathing going on about that you see here. Many other lines have far less to go on than a couple pictures and stories.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no double standard -- the same standard of proof applies to all. I've made the same complaints about Hendrik's "theory" (which he too calls "fact") on Rene's forum. We just have to accept that if things can't be proved, then they remain unproven. And while you may not see much stuff about TWC *now*, years ago when the claims were being made, there was lots of "discussion". Today, these things have pretty much been ironed out and even most of the die-hard TWC practitioners don't swallow Cheung's account.

One of the real problems is that the VTM, which promotes itself as this independent body of WCK historical investigation, is run by the HFY crew (founder and curator of the VTM is Benny Meng, Gee's #1 "disciple"). *And* the story they promulgate as "the treu history of WCK" is HFY's origination myth. Imagine for a moment how they would feel if Hendrik's #1 disciple was head of the VTM and going around saying "the truth" is that WCK comes from Ermei boxing and White Crane! Without, of course, any independent verifiable evidence. They would be outraged -- and rightly so.

I get that a lot of this is backlash from the MKF book presenting a certain viewpoint on history and doing some contrasting to "Popular WC". (Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you're referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages). However, I've heard VTM presentations on history a number of times, and I've never heard anything like presenting it like absolute fact - more like "this is what we think based upon research". The research done if you look at it really isn't a whole lot different from other types of lineage research (anthropology based). There are artifacts, hands-on exchanges to look for sets, training methods, concepts (terms), systems. And there's some filling in of the gaps, just like you would read in any book that is about lineages or groups of people we don't know a whole lot about (like the Native Americans of 1000-1400AD in North America).

How can you porve lineage -- WCK transferred from person to person, without proving those persons existed, that they knew WCK, and that they taught so-and-so? "Research" isn't conclusions -- it is the hard data. Research that isn't independently verifiable isn't good research. How can the VTM say anything about where HFY comes from if they can't *prove* that Garrett Gee learned WCK from Wang Ming? If they can't prove one generation past Gee, how in the world can they say it goes back to Shaolin? All the "concept" stuff, etc. doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It all just remains pure speculation. Certainly not "truth".

In general, MKF is a more detailed thorough handling of WCK than I've seen out there published. Maybe there are more people out there doing research too - good, the more the better. The fewer the historians you have the less complete a picture you have.

I'm not quite sure of what you mean by "detailed handling of WCK". If you mean from a technical standpoint, I would disagree entirely. From a historical POV, it is pure speculation woven to market HFY.

There seems to be a group outside of HFY that has run into a Hung Suen WCK group that was trained by GM Gee's sihing in China or HK. Instead of anyone asking Firehawk where he heard about this, instantly we have demands for "provide the address of the school" or it's not "independantly verifiable". Sheesh - with all you mouth-breathers out there, if I did have "independantly verifiable evidence" type artifacts personally, I'd keep them away from you drooling on them for general principles. There are photos mentioned, and probably "indoor" artifacts that won't be made public. I think MKF has phrases from a kuen kuit recorded in it that are unique. At this point, we don't know much about the Hung Suen group at all.

You've hit the nail on the head -- we don't know much at all, especially about HFY's history. And that's because there has been no *evidence* presented. I don't know about you, but I try to base my conclusions on evidence not idle speculation. Stories are fine but they are not evidence. Why call people names ("mouthbreathers") because we want evidence that can be independently verified?

The evidence either exists or it doesn't.

Terence

Ultimatewingchun

01-19-2007, 06:06 PM

Hands and feet. :rolleyes:

Hendrik

01-19-2007, 07:07 PM

As far as I'm concerned, there is no double standard -- the same standard of proof applies to all. I've made the same complaints about Hendrik's "theory" (which he too calls "fact") on Rene's forum. We just have to accept that if things can't be proved, then they remain unproven. And while you may not see much stuff about TWC *now*, years ago when the claims were being made, there was lots of "discussion". Today, these things have pretty much been ironed out and even most of the die-hard TWC practitioners don't swallow Cheung's account.

One of the real problems is that the VTM, which promotes itself as this independent body of WCK historical investigation, is run by the HFY crew (founder and curator of the VTM is Benny Meng, Gee's #1 "disciple"). *And* the story they promulgate as "the treu history of WCK" is HFY's origination myth. Imagine for a moment how they would feel if Hendrik's #1 disciple was head of the VTM and going around saying "the truth" is that WCK comes from Ermei boxing and White Crane! Without, of course, any independent verifiable evidence. They would be outraged -- and rightly so.

In the field of research, one needs to have the criterion and knowing the field. Instead of jumping into research without any background and resist to look at evidents.

The above arguement is great, however, for me, it is just using a nagation arguement to nagate out every possibility to shows one's own unbiased. That, for me, is about to win arguement on the cost of nagate everything. it just show " I am right ".

Could we shift into the state of provide evidents, examine evidents, and see which is likely?

instead of everyone turn into expert to argue for sake of argue? and when one needs to win the arguement, one is willing to sacrify any facts just to win the arguement for oneself?

It is my suggestion to anyone including Terence, you want prove? ask Gene Ching's help to set up a meeting between the GM PAng of White CRane from FUjian, GM Fu or Emei, there once for all, I present my case and evidents. Gene could put that in the cover of his magazine, everyone can Youtube. Let those real pro to make the decision on the matterial I show, be it Yes or No. I will accept the vedict.

I am willing to go that far instead of playing Pro without any true or only partial knowledge about CMA.

Make my day.

CFT

01-19-2007, 07:14 PM

I think the VTM (or HFYWCK family) are hardly in a position to attack Hendrik's lineage and theories. The standard of proof seems to be similar, i.e. both rely on oral tradition and written documentation passed down within the lineage. Both parties have done comparative studies of their WCK art with other arts and have come to different conclusions about their ultimate origins.

At the very least Hendrik can provide proof of his lineage back by at least 2-3 generations, even if you don't accept a direct link back to Yik Kam. At present, because of the HFYWCK family's unwillingness to disclose any more information (which is their perogative and our "duty" to question), we can only trace HFYWCK to one man: Garrett Gee sifu. Where have the other 3 sihing/dai gone?

Let's give it a rest shall we? No one seems to agree what an acceptable standard of proof is. For me it would be documentation outside of one's lineage, e.g. governmental records, oral tradition or documentation in other non-WCK families.

Hendrik

01-19-2007, 07:54 PM

At the very least Hendrik can provide proof of his lineage back by at least 2-3 generations, even if you don't accept a direct link back to Yik Kam. At present, because of the HFYWCK family's unwillingness to disclose any more information (which is their perogative and our "duty" to question), we can only trace HFYWCK to one man: Garrett Gee sifu. Where have the other 3 sihing/dai gone?

.

If one just checking out the New Martial magazine of Hong Kong and Wu Lin magazine of China, There is not difficult to find all infomation needed to trace back to Yik Kam from different authors of Cho family in different part of the world and different era from the sixties to today.

Rene and Robert have lots of these articles data.

We know, Yik Kam --> Cho Soon --> Cho Dak-Sing, Sam Chan--> Cho On, Cho Chun --> Cho Hong Choy ...etc.

Cho Dak -Sing has been challenged by a hongkong martial artists. Sam Chan felt to malaysia after got into trouble with fighting. Cho Dak-Sing is the son of Cho Soon.

Sam Chan is living in Ipoh Malaysia before his passed away and has his own WCK group.

Cho On is my sigung. Cho Chun's is also my sigung and have other kung fu decendent who is teaching in China as for today who contribute in Wu Lin Magazine.

The writing of Yik Kam and the art salutation indicate the Tai Ping and the Hung Mun that could be confirm by the Tai Ping revolution history and Choy Lee Fut's writing (since CLF is also involve in TaiPing) and Lee Man Mau, red turban, red boat opera uprising. and link to the Small Knive society of Shang Hai.

And we know Yik Kam is real. because what he record and passed down to Cho Soon and then Cho Dak-sing----> match the big picture and details of written and trace able chinese history be it from the view of Lee Man-Mau records or CLF's description of that era.

In additional, also the SLT training Kuen kuit match the White Crane of Fujian and Emei 12 Zhuang training writing. White Crane is 400 years old which have great influence on Southern Chinese martial art. Emei is 700 years old which influence the Emei martial art.

So, how much more one needs to know that SLT is not created out of the blue but has a parents which is 400 years old and 700 years old which influencing China's martial art development?

So, How much more one needs to know that Yik Kam's writing matched the history of China which is written down officially.

For me, the mystery of WCK creation has been solved. The search is over.

So, why do I present all of these? trying to promote my lineage? trying to promote myself?

NOPE.

IMHO,
My goal is using all of these historical and technical details to activate the SLT or the core of the art. So that everyone sees, we have it all. we just not aware of and seeking outward. it is the time to look inward and train with peace of mind and progress forward. Thus, we preserve our art, be it from ANY lineage.

For it is the Technology of handling Mind, breathing, and physical body that is value able the rest about ego ...etc doesnt matter. Thus, I am not anti anyone or any lineage. I am just interested in Technology of handling MInd, breathing, and physical body.

My only interest in all these history stuffs and kuen kuit stuffs is to make use of them for setting me free and have better grow. Once the history and kuen kuit data is reliable and clear define, then I let go of it and start the journey to set myself free and grow.

BTW:
Why waste live in running loop because of trying to defend an ego or a lineage or some his-story. Those are burdent, if the sifu cant let go of these how could the students? since they are the model. ACtion is an evident and sweet talk is just empty. spending time in these extra-burdent is going to be sufforcating. Why do we a modern human wants to strap ourself with all these burden and got stuck?

In these years, people, especially alot of those in the field of doing/ or claiming to do research in WCK mis-understand me and mis-understand the situation.

See, I dont compete with anyone, I just present my case and share. and if others dont have that much evidents, ( I spend 30 years of my life searching it and look deep into Buddhism, Daoism, chinese history....) then that is not my fault but they dont have enough data yet or having no data due to wrong direction.

But then a strange thing happen, they start to attack me, make all type of story try to discredit me with anything they could twist thinking if they could discredit me the discredit could delete whatever data I have found..

In fact, not to many know me. there is even less who know my skill be it good or louzy. In fact, I found the data, but the data is not create by me or my credit or discredit. Thus, it doesnt matter if I have credit or discredit. For once the data found, it is there always.

Thus, it is sad to read they notion of trying to discredit me thinking that way will delet the data i have found. it is impossible to delete a data which is make public that is a fact. if one dont know how to think straight and subsconciously/habitually love to play mind game or trick for arguement shake without even one aware of what one is doing, how could one do research? Again, that is back to the technology of handling the mind.

peace

Do you know why Angels could fly? because they dont take themself seriously, so they are light weight and could fly high. ----- :D

t_niehoff

01-19-2007, 08:31 PM

In the field of research, one needs to have the criterion and knowing the field. Instead of jumping into research without any background and resist to look at evidents.

The above arguement is great, however, for me, it is just using a nagation arguement to nagate out every possibility to shows one's own unbiased. That, for me, is about to win arguement on the cost of nagate everything. it just show " I am right ".

Could we shift into the state of provide evidents, examine evidents, and see which is likely?

instead of everyone turn into expert to argue for sake of argue? and when one needs to win the arguement, one is willing to sacrify any facts just to win the arguement for oneself?

It is my suggestion to anyone including Terence, you want prove? ask Gene Ching's help to set up a meeting between the GM PAng of White CRane from FUjian, GM Fu or Emei, there once for all, I present my case and evidents. Gene could put that in the cover of his magazine, everyone can Youtube. Let those real pro to make the decision on the matterial I show, be it Yes or No. I will accept the vedict.

I am willing to go that far instead of playing Pro without any true or only partial knowledge about CMA.

Make my day.

Hendrik,

"Research" into WCK's history -- which is an inquiry into lineage -- isn't rocket science and doesn't take any specialized knowledge. We don't even need to see the arts themselves! Lineage isn't proved by showing similarities in "concept"; cornish wrestling ( a form of jacket wrestling) looks very similar to judo (a form of jacket wrestling) and uses similar movements, concepts, etc. yet has no connection whatsoever. Similarities can come from all sorts of "sources", from direct connection, from doing similar things, from indirect means, by adopting things, etc. The **only** way to show two arts are *related* is to show they are related by *real people* who practiced together (they can be related in "concept" without ever having any people-connection). Family tree stuff. And to show that doesn't take any specialized knowledge. If that lineage -- line of persons -- cannot be proved, then any relationship remains speculation. It might be possible, it might not. With independently verifiable evidence of lineage, there is no argument possible that a relationship doesn't exist.

Terence

PS - Let me add that I too see similarities in movement/principle between WCK and white crane and think it likely that there is some relationship. However, that similarlity can be attributed to other things besides a direct, or even indirect, connection of the two arts. So it remains in my mind speculation at this point. That relationship can only be proved by independently verifiable evidence of lineage. I know that stories of white crane people being on the red boats exist - but these are stories.

Hendrik

01-19-2007, 08:41 PM

Hendrik,

"Research" into WCK's history -- which is an inquiry into lineage -- isn't rocket science and doesn't take any specialized knowledge. ...

You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject.

Some will go to Korea to Germany to search for the involvement of WCK to the uprising. Instead of following the path of Lee Man Mau, the TaiPing revolution,and the Small Knive society to Shang Hai of China.... Sure they are right but find different things or nothing.

Some argue for arguement sake due to habitually or subsconciously triggle by the emotion or feeling "just needs to win any arguement". They are also right.

one sure doesnt need any specialized knowledge to do research, and garbage in garbage out. anyone is wrong? nope, generate garbage is also right for those who love to generage garbage.

Best Regars
Lots of love and have a nice give end.

Hendrik

01-19-2007, 08:48 PM

Hendrik,

"Research" into WCK's history -- which is an inquiry into lineage -- isn't rocket science and doesn't take any specialized knowledge. ...

You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject was. similar to we in the west love to define what is WCK with our 2007 western educate mind set and sure we think we are right.

Some will go to Korea to Germany or Mars to search for the history and involvement of WCK to the uprising and....

Instead of following the path of Lee Man Mau, the TaiPing revolution,and the Small Knive society to Shang Hai of China....

Sure they are right to go to Korea and Germany or Mars but find different things or nothing.

Some argue for arguement sake due to habitually or subsconciously triggle by the emotion or feeling "just needs to win any arguement". They are also right.

I talk all day long about Chan Chan Chan, but keep fighting to feed my ego and continous on feeding the forever unsatisfying trist of ego; without a rest even for one second. and I call that I Know Chan or Zen. am I right? Yes, I am right. I only dont know when and where to drop my ego. and I am right. hahahaha.

See, Terence, everyone is right.

Best Regars
Lots of love and have a nice give end.

t_niehoff

01-19-2007, 09:02 PM

You are right of couse in your point of view.

Just some thoughts

Some will examine a 1850 Chinese subject with a modern western mind set and think they are right. Sure they are right but what they think doesnt reflect what that 1850 chinese subject..

An interesting circular tautology! Absurd, but interesting.

Do you think that I cannot understand the lineage of judo because I have a "western mindset" and am not a product of Japan of 1900? Why is it that all the "WCK historians" can't provide independently verifialbe evidence of lineage? Because it doesn't exist. So then we get treated to speculations, where various sources of stories, legends, similarities are cherrypicked (you pick the one's that support your theory and disregard the others), linked together, and presto!, your theory is proved. But they are all built like a house of cards, one speculation or assumption on top of another. The arguments boils down to who cherry-picked from the stories better! And the really funny (sad) part is that people get so attached to these unimportant stories and theories.

Terence

Hendrik

01-19-2007, 09:12 PM

An interesting circular tautology! Absurd, but interesting. -----

You sure are right!
When is the last time have you agree that you are wrong?

Do you think that I cannot understand the lineage of judo because I have a "western mindset" and am not a product of Japan of 1900? ------

I dont think.
and I dont think as you think.
and I dont make the above speculation and ask others these type of question.

If I intend to know whether you have understanding or not, I simply ask you to share your view, if your view fit the japanese judo teaching and trandition of 1900. then, you understand. if your view doesnt fit. then you dont, why do I have to think?

why do I have to run my mind CPU instead of just ask and observe?

That is the WCK concept of Asking hand right? hahaha

Why is it that all the "WCK historians" can't provide independently verifialbe evidence of lineage? Because it doesn't exist. ---

You are right. and when is the last time you agree or admit you are wrong?

So then we get treated to speculations, where various sources of stories, legends, similarities are cherrypicked (you pick the one's that support your theory and disregard the others)....-----

You know, based on the above post, you are right. Evidentally, you love to speculate and then speculate the outcome too. and what is speculation? mental exercise which might or might not reflect what is the situation. IMHO.

btw since you mind is habitually not practicing Mun Sau or asking hand, but speculation, do you really know WCK? if yes strange how come it doesnt shown in you mind set?

Terence, from your action above, we know you dont know the Concept or Traditional of Chinese Kung Fu in 1850.

That concept is the concept of Tien Yan hap yat in cantoness or Heaven and Man unite into one.

What is that means?
Asking hand, and listern to the hand as in Chi Sau or physical handling.
Ask and observe others action as for mind handling.

See, Without knowing this you dont know Kuen Choong Sum fat or "strike source from mind/heart".
For your heart/mind is used for speculation not use for asking/listerning/ and issuing.

So do you understand the WCK with a "speculative mindset" ?
Nope your action show you dont.

So are you right? sure, am I wrong sure. hahaha.

peace