Honest HFY Question-

[canglong]

Originally posted by Alan Orr
Good post Keith. The HFY guys hate being asked anything, but they like to talk alot. I have never add any problem with TWC or any other branch of wing chun. I have not even a problem with HFY. I do have a problem with the guys in that group who always attack my teacher and have nothing to say but child like name calling.What we hate is answering the same stupid questions over and over again that come from a group that has more to answer for than anyone else. Alan you need to resolve the fact that your Sifu produced a book which research says Wing Chun comes from Shaolin but he himself believes in some White Crane theory. Just because Robert doesn't like the answers he keeps sending your dumb puppet @ss out to ask them over and over again. You haven't had any problems with TWC. This is not about you this is about a Sifu out of control. You would not even be here were it not for Robert Chu sending you, Terence and others out to see how long you can drag out a thread on KFO for his sick twisted benefit every time he gets a wild hair up his @ss here come the trolls like clock work. A leopard like Robert Chu has not changed his spots since he began feuding with Randy Williams, William Cheung, Moy Yat, Lei Mu Shan, and many others and not even Victor will dispute that.

There are honest answers to honest questions all over this forum if a person is willing to look and take some initiative they can learn a lot of things. There are also bait and switch questions all over this forum and anyone watching knows that when HFY is involved those questions always always without exception come from the same d@mn group of Robert Chu cronies. This type of crap does not happen by accident. There is no denying that Robert Chu has been attacking HFY since it was introduced to the public and people like Victor have taken the bait and joined in on that attack without ever understanding the facts. It just even so happens that in this particular thread Robert was gracious enough to bless us with his presence. This thread just as predicted is now living proof that John Crecione's question was never sincere or honest!

Alan you and Victor don't recognize the answer because you refuse to call a punch a punch and a kick a kick All WING CHUN COMES FROM THE SAME SOURCE There are similarities that will always exist and if you throw in White Crane of course you will needlessly make things harder than need be and confusing. After 1850 there exist at least 2 branches of Wing Chun that of Wong Wa Bo/ Leung Yee Tai and that of Hung Gun Biu and the Boxer Society. This explains why some things may now look different. Arguing over the differences you don't study is a waste of time that you and Victor are now engaged in at the moment which is just silly and equivalent to trolling to those that understand the facts.

So again Gwai Ma is present in all southern martial arts in some form or another. Gwai Ma is more a term emphasizing the use of the knee but more times than not any specific use because it is a general term. Any system which emphasizes tin yaan dei as Hung Fa Yi does and being a southern martial art will utilize Gwai Ma but it will not be specific to the Bui Jee level because again it is a general term.

[reneritchie]

FWIW - And daring to return to the original topic, Gwai Ma is technically not in any of the forms in YKS/SN WCK (not in SLT, CK, BJ, HJ, etc.), it's in an extension to the second of the 12 free hands (Side Punch is extended into Kneeling Side Punch, which is also a heckuva leg workout...)

[Alan Orr]

What we hate is answering the same stupid questions over and over again that come from a group that has more to answer for than anyone else. Alan you need to resolve the fact that your Sifu produced a book which research says Wing Chun comes from Shaolin but he himself believes in some White Crane theory. Just because Robert doesn't like the answers he keeps sending your dumb puppet @ss out to ask them over and over again. You haven't had any problems with TWC. This is not about you this is about a Sifu out of control. You would not even be here were it not for Robert Chu sending you, Terence and others out to see how long you can drag out a thread on KFO for his sick twisted benefit every time he gets a wild hair up his @ss here come the trolls like clock work. A leopard like Robert Chu has not changed his spots since he began feuding with Randy Williams, William Cheung, Moy Yat, Lei Mu Shan, and many others and not even Victor will dispute that.

There are honest answers to honest questions all over this forum if a person is willing to look and take some initiative they can learn a lot of things. There are also bait and switch questions all over this forum and anyone watching knows that when HFY is involved those questions always always without exception come from the same d@mn group of Robert Chu cronies. This type of crap does not happen by accident. There is no denying that Robert Chu has been attacking HFY since it was introduced to the public and people like Victor have taken the bait and joined in on that attack without ever understanding the facts. It just even so happens that in this particular thread Robert was gracious enough to bless us with his presence. This thread just as predicted is now living proof that John Crecione's question was never sincere or honest!

Alan you and Victor don't recognize the answer because you refuse to call a punch a punch and a kick a kick All WING CHUN COMES FROM THE SAME SOURCE There are similarities that will always exist and if you throw in White Crane of course you will needlessly make things harder than need be and confusing. After 1850 there exist at least 2 branches of Wing Chun that of Wong Wa Bo/ Leung Yee Tai and that of Hung Gun Biu and the Boxer Society. This explains why some things may now look different. Arguing over the differences you don't study is a waste of time that you and Victor are now engaged in at the moment which is just silly and equivalent to trolling to those that understand the facts.

So again Gwai Ma is present in all southern martial arts in some form or another. Gwai Ma is more a term emphasizing the use of the knee but more times than not any specific use because it is a general term. Any system which emphasizes tin yaan dei as Hung Fa Yi does and being a southern martial art will utilize Gwai Ma but it will not be specific to the Bui Jee level because again it is a general term.

Same old BS. My teacher has no feuds going on. This is HFY sad way to try to get others to back them up. Why? of course to avoid questions as always.

This thread was not about my teacher is was someone else asking about HFY/TWC. I only added my questions to the thread. Simple.

Tony you like to call me names and throw insults at me. Please, next time you come to the UK let me know. I will give you the chance to say it to my face.

Alan

[JPinAZ]

This is the find of post that says a lot but answers nothing. HFY 101!

BTY the chui sao event will have strikes to the head. I not sure what your point is? The event is for people interested in helping wing chun grow and gain respect in the real martial art world.

VTM and HFY, well we have never seen anything which is first hand research on this matter. It is always a point of view. That is not history at all. Its fine to have your view, but its not history Fact if you can not show it to be.

Alan

Alan, this goes both ways. I put it back on you - prove YOUR CSL lineage past Robert Chu... Impossible when the system is named after robert, and is admittedly made up by him. So your lineage is only what, 20 years old? And you question the authenticy of HFY's history and demand for proof of ligitimacy?? If this is the way you think, then you're as big an idiot as I might guess

(BTW, there is NO name calling here if you know how to read - if the shoe fits, wear it. if not, then idiot doesn't apply - an 'educated man' would see this)

[KPM]

FWIW - And daring to return to the original topic, Gwai Ma is technically not in any of the forms in YKS/SN WCK (not in SLT, CK, BJ, HJ, etc.), it's in an extension to the second of the 12 free hands (Side Punch is extended into Kneeling Side Punch, which is also a heckuva leg workout...)


Wow! A straight-forward, easily understood answer to the question: "Does YKS/SN WCK have Gwai Ma in its Biu Gee form?" No beating around the bush, no vague...all southern systems have Gwai Ma...tin yaan da...bla bla bla. Thanks Rene! :D

[KPM]

Alan, this goes both ways. I put it back on you - prove YOUR CSL lineage past Robert Chu... Impossible when the system is named after robert, and is admittedly made up by him. So your lineage is only what, 20 years old? And you question the authenticy of HFY's history and demand for proof of ligitimacy?? If this is the way you think, then you're as big an idiot as I might guess

(BTW, there is NO name calling here if you know how to read - if the shoe fits, wear it. if not, then idiot doesn't apply - an 'educated man' would see this)

---I'm not even part of Robert Chu's lineage and I can answer this one! Yes! Robert did "make it up." It is his interpretation of the WCK he has learned and he freely admits it! He makes no unsubstantiated historical claims. Claims no connections to Chinese secret societies, hermits in mountain temples, or teachers that no one has ever heard of or ever seen. Proving the lineage beyond Robert Chu? Easy! Hawkins Cheung lives in LA and is frequently seen on the WCK scene. He has other students teaching and is known by many people. He even has his own website! :eek: Some of Robert's other teachers....William Cheung...also well known...also has other students...also has his own website! Who in the Moy Yat family...was it Lee Moy Shan? Also well-known, also has other students, don't know about a website. Now.......Wang Ming....who knows him? Who has seen his WCK? Where are his other students? There is lots of evidence that Robert Chu's teachers exist and teach WCK. Where is that evidence that Garret Gee's teacher exists and teaches WCK? You need to do some self-reflection before calling anyone an "idiot."

[hhe]

Did you learn HFY before from Richard L. in AZ? Why did you ask him in person?

[reneritchie]

@KPM:

Don't you "Jordan Collier" me...

[Hendrik]

KPM,

IMHO


1,

There is nothing wrong to evolve to have one's own way of WCK.

It is an evolve world. Same with any living being, The art is dead if the art is not alive and evolve. That is just a reality.




The issue comes when one doesnt acknowledge the source of one art's evolution or one makes the art up and not declare clearly what it is, and intentionally or un intentionally mislead others because thier believe and mind set.


Thus,
There is nothing needs to be honest about the TRUTH imho TRUTH is always there disregard of if one is lying or honest. it is only a matter of time that things will surface naturally.


and as the title of this threat " honest... Question". Well, one could totally be honest and still it is not telling the truth because one just dont know the answer; everyone has thier version of reality.




2,

speaking about time, dimension, space, energy, awareness, face it this world is an expanding evolutional world. NO set of rule could contain it because at every instant this world is expanding.


Forget about those old chinese secret is the ultimate. Even Lao Tze alive or Damo Reincarnated today, they will have to learn how to use computer because they simply dont know how. The mind set of once upon a time some one create the best perfect system is just something blocking the progress of one. In fact, it limit one and put one's to death.


Zen is about free flow and limitless big mind and big heart. enjoy the true teaching of Zen or Shao Lin here

http://www.bigmind.org/Big%20Mind/findingbigmind_page.html



Go for the limitless and be free.


Relax and enjoy life and grow and be be free it is a chinese new year next week.


peace

[anerlich]

In the first paragraph above, please note that there is one and only one sentence missing from the extract of Complete Wing Chun. In the CWC book, the last sentence of that paragraph mentions GM Gee as one of the four disciples. But here in this link, it is excluded and jumps straight to Yip Man teaching William Cheung. Misleading???


LOL at this beat up.

Jeez, I better tell Rick Spain that HFY are gunning for him and give him a stern lecture on plagiarism (though the phrase "fair use" comes to imnd, though I guess attribution would be appropriate. If anyone other than zealots with OCD GAF). (Yawn).

Savi, you're not in a position to criticize anyone else's family (is there an echo in here?) Though, really, you have little talent for it.

I though Alan and Robert weres the ones trying to stir up trouble between lineages. Now it appears it's my instructor, or whoever wrote the marketingspeak for his website.

You might note CWC is recommended at the end of the article, and anyone reading the Hung Suen (now HFY part) will find the article unedited and correctly attributed. So, while it's Robert's and Rene's right to ask us to cease and desist, we are actually giving them a plug, so, despite your efforts to sh1t-stir, I think you're bound for disappointment. Something you are used to on many levels, no doubt.

I have a question.

I didn't see a question. I saw an immature, paranoid, shadow-jumping, straw-grasping attempt to flog a horse that was, forget dead, never even born.

You sound like a ten year old telling a classmate someone told him someone else heard that their sister's friend said his mother wears army boots.

Do William Cheung and the HFY guy look alike? Can someone post pics and we run a poll? :p

[Liddel]

Fisrt off, thanks for the continued chat Wayfaring amoungst flairing egos, LOL

We do drills that focus on each portion (Kiu Sao, Chi Kiu) to develop the skillsets. When things are more freeform they mix in together and it is harder to separate them out.

You could see how i got confused with the info given though yeah ?
Kui Sao was said to be a longer range drill, which i can certainly relate to having my own version.
Although when it was said that Kiu Sao can at times be at a closer range than Chi Sao it was lika a spanner in the works for what i had understood Kiu Sao to be at that stage in the discussion.

Simple.


Well there are different skills necessary and different concepts that are primary depending upon range and facing. That's the whole point of why they are separated out and trained.

But common sence would dictate that when the seperate drills are put together for another 'training platform' like sparring it would go by a different name.....
stright foward misunderstanding. Ive only gotta be told once :p


Agreed. You can develop skills by drilling, feel, sparring. It is not necessary to understand the "whys" of things behind it. Unless you want to teach somebody else. If so, then "it feels like this" doesn't usually cut it.

This is off base, i agree with what you said here, but it doesnt relate to why i wrote my comment about not needing to know string theory or alternate dimensions. Your Kung Fu Bro alluded to another dimension which he called a 'diagonal' which lead to this......


It is true in physics there are 3 dimensions, or 4 including time (Einstein - Relativity). When you're talking MA engagements, intent can be considered a 4th dimension.

You didnt check my link to Minkowskis space did you LOL

Special Relativity calls it space/time buddy and its not universal its personal and has no connection with human emotions which is what 'intent' would fall under....

You can see how it might confuse an inquiring mind :cool:

Adding an extra dimension you call a 'diagonal' is like Einsteins "cosmological constant" which he later admitted was his biggest mistake.....

Anyway how you put it is fairly straight foward, not my cup of tea but i can understand it.
Again Danude(sp?) called this extra axis a Diagonal no mention of 'intent'....


I suppose if you don't understand something, calling it convoluted and making fun of it is one way to approach it...:rolleyes:

I though i was quite humble and polite stating "i may have it wrong"...LOL

Its conveluted my friend, because the extra axis of a "diagonal" is a combination of two already existing axis. Depth and width. :rolleyes:

I poked a little fun, cause its common sence dude :o

If you cant see that then we're very differnt in the thinking department. ;)

Its the superfluous info that i dont perscribe to in any MA, being a VT man im into common sence and straight to the point information/theories and application.

DREW

[anerlich]

***Levi, thanks for your interest in keeping this a discussion about the two systems and not a personality/political conflict thing.

Now as for the questions raised in your post:

1) Yes, you are correct in that assumption. That's why the x-like (scissor-like) movement is done both low and then high. To signify that the east-west Central Line boundaries apply at all the heights in-between low-and-high as well.

2) No, they are always the same. As I indicated in my answer to number 1. The area most be protected, occupied, (the concept of SPACE), regardless of whether your opponent's attack is low, high, or anything in-between.

3) The east-west line extends to wherever your opponent is at any given moment. Regardless of how far away he is. But obviously the closer you are to him the more you can confine your attacks and defenses to a smaller section of the east-west parameter IN REAL TIME.

This is where the concept of TIME has a very important application. I will probably be spending most of my time operating on a smaller east-west plane at a very close distance to the opponent - because the outside path won't help him loop around me IN TIME to stop himself from getting hit or kicked.

4) As for high positions - in theory the line still exists...but again, from a very close distance I can focus on going straight in and not be too concerned about some looping overhand strike - because the opponent is too far out of his own Central Line to be able to hit me IN TIME before I hit him.

If, on the other hand, he were standing some 4 feet away or more, for example, when he tries an overhand shot that starts out looping outside of the "exact" Central line boundaries as they are defined within the TWC SLT, I would have no choice but to have to deal with it - ie.- defend against it with a high bong sao or a high bil sao, or perhaps some footwork, or whatever...since he might be INSIDE my central line parameters too quickly for me to just go forward and strike. So the concept of speed - as it relates to TIME - must be taken into account as well. My eyes must tell me in a split-second how long will it take for his outside-the-Centraline strike to make it inside and therefore be a threat.

As for below the waist: it's still the same east-west parameters but preferably (and again this will be TIME and SPACE dependent)...preferably I'm using legs against legs in attack and defense.

I wrote an earlier reply to this but it got deleted. Some minor additions to Vic's good answers:

1. Am I correct in that this left and right boundary exists at all heights (the down position is just an exercise to "draw" it)?

* pretty much, though only in as much as it has application where both combatants/weapons can touch.

2. Does the left and right boundary change at different heights?

* If it's defined as the distance where wrists cross, then this WILL vary somewhat at different heights. Good question, BTW.

3. Is there a specific distance from the body that this line exists at, or does it extend into infinity?

* In theory yes IMO, though if the combatants can't touch each other that's pretty academic.

4. Finally, are there specific lower and higher positions in which this line no longer exists (i.e. above the head, below the waist, etc.)?

* basically where you can't reach.

There is your central line and the opp's central line, Ideally you would like to fight inside yours but outside his.

[Alan Orr]

---I'm not even part of Robert Chu's lineage and I can answer this one! Yes! Robert did "make it up." It is his interpretation of the WCK he has learned and he freely admits it! He makes no unsubstantiated historical claims. Claims no connections to Chinese secret societies, hermits in mountain temples, or teachers that no one has ever heard of or ever seen. Proving the lineage beyond Robert Chu? Easy! Hawkins Cheung lives in LA and is frequently seen on the WCK scene. He has other students teaching and is known by many people. He even has his own website! :eek: Some of Robert's other teachers....William Cheung...also well known...also has other students...also has his own website! Who in the Moy Yat family...was it Lee Moy Shan? Also well-known, also has other students, don't know about a website. Now.......Wang Ming....who knows him? Who has seen his WCK? Where are his other students? There is lots of evidence that Robert Chu's teachers exist and teach WCK. Where is that evidence that Garret Gee's teacher exists and teaches WCK? You need to do some self-reflection before calling anyone an "idiot."

Thanks Keith. HFY seem to find it hard to understand that my teacher has a long background in wing chun. Maybe if I draw some pictures of my teacher and his teachers.... sorry...if I start with the bad jokes again the world may come to an end.

[Alan Orr]

Fisrt off, thanks for the continued chat Wayfaring amoungst flairing egos, LOL



You could see how i got confused with the info given though yeah ?
Kui Sao was said to be a longer range drill, which i can certainly relate to having my own version.
Although when it was said that Kiu Sao can at times be at a closer range than Chi Sao it was lika a spanner in the works for what i had understood Kiu Sao to be at that stage in the discussion.

Simple.



But common sence would dictate that when the seperate drills are put together for another 'training platform' like sparring it would go by a different name.....
stright foward misunderstanding. Ive only gotta be told once :p



This is off base, i agree with what you said here, but it doesnt relate to why i wrote my comment about not needing to know string theory or alternate dimensions. Your Kung Fu Bro alluded to another dimension which he called a 'diagonal' which lead to this......



You didnt check my link to Minkowskis space did you LOL

Special Relativity calls it space/time buddy and its not universal its personal and has no connection with human emotions which is what 'intent' would fall under....

You can see how it might confuse an inquiring mind :cool:

Adding an extra dimension you call a 'diagonal' is like Einsteins "cosmological constant" which he later admitted was his biggest mistake.....

Anyway how you put it is fairly straight foward, not my cup of tea but i can understand it.
Again Danude(sp?) called this extra axis a Diagonal no mention of 'intent'....



I though i was quite humble and polite stating "i may have it wrong"...LOL

Its conveluted my friend, because the extra axis of a "diagonal" is a combination of two already existing axis. Depth and width. :rolleyes:

I poked a little fun, cause its common sence dude :o

If you cant see that then we're very differnt in the thinking department. ;)

Its the superfluous info that i dont perscribe to in any MA, being a VT man im into common sence and straight to the point information/theories and application.

DREW

Hi Drew

I think you may be taking these HFY guys into areas of common sence that may cause attachment problems.

Best

Alan

[anerlich]

FWIW - And daring to return to the original topic, Gwai Ma is technically not in any of the forms in YKS/SN WCK (not in SLT, CK, BJ, HJ, etc.), it's in an extension to the second of the 12 free hands (Side Punch is extended into Kneeling Side Punch, which is also a heckuva leg workout...)

Interesting. That may help explain why it appeared, disappeared and reappeared from the TWC Bil Jee over time.

[Alan Orr]

Respectfully, If that is the case, then why even bring HFY into the discussion? Just address it to the individuals.

I am NOT meaning any ill will here, just making an observation. Engaging in tit-for-tat just accelerates the downward spiral. Sticking to the issue (and sticking to the actual people involved) keeps things on track.

I am reminded of what is trying to happen here with Parlati Sifu explaining some TWC things. By sticking to the topic, and sticking to the people involved, it has managed to limp on in spite of all this other stuff and there has actually been some good stuff as a result.

-Levi

Levi you are right and before I have done so. But everytime I post on anything HFY, the same guys start up again.

It is your our group that is making your branch look like nuts. I have a very open mind to it all. I am now more that happy to play along, its more fun.

When I get to meet the guys then we can deal with the personal issues.

best

Alan

[Alan Orr]

Hi Savi,

Long time no post. Hope all's well with you and yours.

We (neither Robert, Yewmun, nor myself), altered or edited anything in the Hung Suen chapter of Complete Wing Chun (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FComplete-Wing-Chun-Definitive-Traditions%2Fdp%2F0804831416&tag=wingchunkuencom&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325"). If anyone told you we did, they are mistaken. I've had to correct this already far too many times, so I would appreciate your help in propagating the correction where ever possible.

For the other sections of the book, because the contributors weren't writers, they provided raw information (old notes, photos, charts, etc.) and we compiled it all into the structural format we were using (history, forms, training, etc.), sent it back for them to check, and the finalized it.

John Murphy provided the Hung Suen chapter already written. Unfortunately, since the first draft did not (structurally) match the rest of the book (didn't divide things up in the same sections), I took a stab at editing it, but John didn't like the idea of anyone else working on it, so Robert forwarded him some sample chapters from other branches, as well as a list of things we needed changed (too keep it more focused on WCK, and more PC), and John did the edit himself.

When John finished it up, we packaged it with the rest, and sent it to Tuttle (who, as far as I know, didn't edit anything aside from spelling and adding Leung Ting's and William Cheung's pictures to the Yip Man section since they felt it would add appeal to their large student bases).

That's why, if you look at the acknowledgements at the beginning of Complete Wing Chun, there's a list of people we thank for their contributions (like Andreas Hoffmann and Eddie Chong), but we thank Gee Sifu and John Murphy for supplying their chapter. The difference of acknowledgement was deliberate.

Thanks again for your help in clearing this up,



[edited for grammar and link]


This is the problem with Savi and with the way some of the HFY guys post on forums. They post and say whatever they think therefore it must be true. No wonder people don't buy into your ideas.

[taltos]

I wrote an earlier reply to this but it got deleted. Some minor additions to Vic's good answers:

1. Am I correct in that this left and right boundary exists at all heights (the down position is just an exercise to "draw" it)?

* pretty much, though only in as much as it has application where both combatants/weapons can touch.

2. Does the left and right boundary change at different heights?

* If it's defined as the distance where wrists cross, then this WILL vary somewhat at different heights. Good question, BTW.

3. Is there a specific distance from the body that this line exists at, or does it extend into infinity?

* In theory yes IMO, though if the combatants can't touch each other that's pretty academic.

4. Finally, are there specific lower and higher positions in which this line no longer exists (i.e. above the head, below the waist, etc.)?

* basically where you can't reach.

There is your central line and the opp's central line, Ideally you would like to fight inside yours but outside his.

Kewl. And I agree, from a sparring/fighting perspective, #3, #4, and to a certain extent #2 (if you can't reach, etc) may be more academic than functional.

#4 is something I trained in the Yip Man system in my earlier days, although without the central line. When using the ubiquitous WC wedge (the triangle formed by putting your fingertips together in front of your body), it was better if you were "pointing" at them without them "pointing" at you.

I appreciate the sharing, and the clarifications, but unfortunately it looks like this thread is becoming another fatality. I don't want this stink on me. Besides, I am getting tired of "the HFY guys" this and "the HFY guys" that when (by nature of the fact that I study HFY) I'm presumably included. I don't need that.

But thank you very much for the info. I appreciate it, and respect your willingness to share.

Be well and train well,

-Levi

[reneritchie]

@anerlich:

Since stuff like San Sik aren't, by their nature, as formal, there's a higher propensity for change and addition/subtraction. If Siu Lien Tao is a codex of alphabet and grammar, San Sik are like Scrabble tiles :)

So, some teachers could pick up more or less scrabble-tile, pass on more or less, emphasize more or less, combine them in different ways, etc.

Out of all the San Sik he learned from Cheung Bo and Yuen Kay-San, Sum Nung organized a very well thought out (IMHO) set of San Sik and extensions to help his early students develop fighting skill quickly, with the bonus effect of making the included San Sik easier to remember, and an argument could be made that most of the essential primitives are applied or implied in the ones he selected as much, if not as obviously, as in the three long sets, but who knows what other San Sik he may have chosen not to include? (Looking at another San Sik selection, like that of Leung Jan in Koo Lo, certainly provides some clues).

Likewise, my guess is that Gwai Ma/Gwai Choi could have been passed on to some students and not others, remembered by some and not others, kept by some and not others, taken in and out by some and not others, etc. depending on how relevant it was at the time.

That, and not all old folks may want to crank out them leg sets! :)

[reneritchie]

@the rest:

http://www.w1ng.com/message-board-chi-sao/

[Wayfaring]

@rene,

Rene Ritchie - "On ur internetz, coding ur php".

[Savi]

LOL at this beat up.

Jeez, I better tell Rick Spain that HFY are gunning for him and give him a stern lecture on plagiarism (though the phrase "fair use" comes to imnd, though I guess attribution would be appropriate. If anyone other than zealots with OCD GAF). (Yawn).

Savi, you're not in a position to criticize anyone else's family (is there an echo in here?) Though, really, you have little talent for it. I said I didn't take offense to it. Just pointing out your double standard. No one is gunning for Rick Spain. YOU, Andrew, attack the authors of MKF, yet your organization uses writings from HFY & the VTM to promote your organization. YOU are the one stirring 5HIT, not me. I'm just pointing the mirror back at your big mouth.

I though Alan and Robert weres the ones trying to stir up trouble between lineages. Now it appears it's my instructor, or whoever wrote the marketingspeak for his website. Not at all, Andrew. You are right in that Robert and Alan are doing just that. I'm not attacking your instructor. I'm pointing out a non-HFY article that talks about "purity" and "true teachings" for the simple fact that some individuals around here seem to think that the HFY group is the only one SUPPOSEDLY p!ssing on everyone else. Some users here mudsling MKF around here, including you. I was just pointing out that the things the authors of MKF are being accused of, can be found in other areas if one chooses to really look into it.

You might note CWC is recommended at the end of the article, and anyone reading the Hung Suen (now HFY part) will find the article unedited and correctly attributed. So, while it's Robert's and Rene's right to ask us to cease and desist, we are actually giving them a plug, so, despite your efforts to sh1t-stir, I think you're bound for disappointment. Something you are used to on many levels, no doubt. Very funny:rolleyes:. You've been stirring 5hit for quite a long time, so I definitely give you the award for that. I'd expect any and all the personal disappointment that comes with stirring 5hit. You're a veteran pro at that, though, so kudos to you.

I didn't see a question. I saw an immature, paranoid, shadow-jumping, straw-grasping attempt to flog a horse that was, forget dead, never even born.Wow. Good one. sigh... you got me. Oh darn... :rolleyes: With rebuttals like yours, you must be talking to yourself.

You sound like a ten year old telling a classmate someone told him someone else heard that their sister's friend said his mother wears army boots.I'm sure you've got plenty more of those comments from that pile of 5hit you've been stirring for how many years now. And you're calling me immature? Read your comments and see whose doing the character assassination.

Do William Cheung and the HFY guy look alike? Can someone post pics and we run a poll? :pLike I said, someone here is being hypocritical, and it's not me.

[Savi]

My sihing Levi put up this new thread at HFY108.com (http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16110#post16110)

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think we all can agree that the historical "explanations" of both TWC and HFY have long been disputed by many people within the rest of the wing chun world. And Robert Chu has most definitely been a vocal member on that list of people doing the disputing. Granted.

But no one on either side of this latest dispute between Robert and some of his guys (like Alan) on one side and people like Savi and some others on the HFY side should get any mistaken impressions about where I'm coming from in all of this at the present time.

I still have some very strong suspicions about where BOTH men got their respective systems that might surprise some of you.

I now have a hard time believing either man's story, quite frankly. (Although my loyalties to my instructor, William Cheung, will never change)...nonetheless, at the age of 57 - you know what?...

I want to know the truth more than anything else. If not now - when?

I can remain loyal to William Cheung and still have some views of my own about where he got the material he refers to as TWC. I've learned an enormous amount of excellent material from him - for which I shall always be grateful.

Furthermore, I can't imagine, for example, that Garrett Gee would just have the audacity to rip off William Cheung's material and call it his own - while making up an elaborate history to boot. :eek:

It would take a complete nutjob to do something like that. And from what I've seen of Garret Gee on the FRIENDSHIP seminar tape - and from what I heard about him from my long time TWC friend Delroi Flood - and from what I heard about him from my Moy Yat VT friend, Miguel Hernandez - who was at the FRIENDSHIP seminar....it just doesn't fit his MO that he would do such a thing.

And since there's evidence from eye-witnesses in Australia that William Cheung did indeed start teaching different things (ie.- TWC things) as far back as 1973 - right after Yip Man's death - it's impossible to make the case that William ripped off Garrett Gee.

WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT BOTH MEN STARTED TEACHING TWC/HFY AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. (If we are to believe Garrett Gee's claim that he started teaching in the early 70's in San Francisco).

But this "coincidence" raises even more questions than it answers.

BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE NONE OF THIS MATTERS IF INDEED THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS.

And to date, I don't believe there are such "major" differences. (Only minor ones). But I want to find out more about this than from what I've read, seen, and heard so far (ie.- over the last 9-10 years or so that I've been aware of HFY).

So I'm open to discovery. Let's explore the two systems IN THE ONLY POSSIBLE OBJECTIVE MANNER THERE IS - by examining concepts, principles, strategies, and techniques.

Because the longer we prolong the political/ego infighting and bickering - the harder it becomes to ever discover the truth about either system.

Hence I welcome the efforts of those on this thread who want to compare and contrast the two systems IN DETAIL.

The more detail the better.

Because everything else is just politics. Enough of the politics. Let's just get to the truth. :cool:

[Ultimatewingchun]

So in the spirit of my last post - here's something for Savi:

(Here's what Savi listed in post#101 on page 7 of this thread):

Bong Laap Kiu Sau
Deui Ying Kiu Sau
Dim Buhn Kiu Sau
Faat Sau Kiu Sau
Kwan Sau Kiu Sau
Saam Sing Jong Kiu Sau

I think we've covered Bong Laap Kiu Sau pretty much - as regards the parallel within TWC bong/lop drills and concepts and how they relate to kiu sao bridging and distance issues and energy/force issues.

Now what about "Deui Ying Kiu Sau"?

So from my Moy Yat days I know that the word/phrase "Deui Ying" means "FACING" one's centerline to the opponent properly - or returning to deui ying when one has lost the proper facing, ie.- like what many wing chun systems believe Bil Jee is all about.

In TWC we simply use the English word "facing"...as in "facing the point of contact" - a phrase used often in TWC (ie.- if a hook/round punch is thrown from a distance wherein it would not be safe to just move in/forward with your centerline facing his center of mass - we would face our main centerline to the point on his arm where we would block/intercept/redirect his hook with a wing chun hand ie.- bil/lop, etc.)...that is also placed on our main centerline.

While possibly returning the fire nearly simultaneously by punching him with the non-blocking hand - usually on a different "east-west" line (ie.- face your main centerline to the point of contact you're blocking near his elbow - while punching him back by traveling along your "chest" or "shoulder" line)...an example of the Central Line principle/concept in action.

So that all of the most important SPACE between the two of you is occupied by your troops - and not his.

So Savi:

Care to give some specific details about "Deui Ying Kiu Sau" from the HFY perspective?

[Phil Redmond]

No answers to your questions, perhaps. But I wasn't trying to answer your questions. I was trying to point out something that may allow us to compartmentalize our opinions and keep from having our opinions for one organization cloud our opinions on another. Here in the US we're in an election year, so clouding the issues is all day, every day on TV, and it gets real old real fast.

I was only trying to bring an end to this "internet BS." Like you have mentioned that you and Meng Sifu tried to do. THAT was my intent, not a treatise on HFY and TWC. I have NEVER seen a single TWC form to completion, online or otherwise, have never attended a TWC seminar, read a TWC book, watched a TWC video, so I really an in NO place to even address your questions since they are HFY and TWC specific.

Sorry if my intent wasn't clear.

-Levi
The TWC forms are here: http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/empty.asp
Also, if you send me an email I can send you a clip demonstrating the 4th Center (Central line)

[canglong]

Origninally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I think we all can agree that the historical "explanations" of both TWC and HFY have long been disputed by many people within the rest of the wing chun world. And Robert Chu has most definitely been a vocal member on that list of people doing the disputing. Granted.
Victor your belief in Robert Chu is part of what keeps you blinded from the truth. It's easy to stop the BS but hard to stop after others have joined in. You think after 19 pages you get to call the shots on the direction of when and how things go its not that simple. You fail to understand the basics of being insulted. Maybe you don't understand when Robert called William Cheung "a pimp" that was not a compliment. Let me give you an analogy of how things work when working on a surface level. Several years ago while on a trip to Mexico while being served by a dark hair dark skin female waitress some small talk ensued and one of our guys asked her if she spoke Spanish. The waitress kind of caught off guard proclaimed rather forcefully she was not Mexican but Native American Indian.

To some it might be considered an honest mistake but to her it was the ultimate insult to assume she could be stereotyped as something she was not. Knowledge is power. People who only think they know something but willing to chances using only bits and pieces of information are reckless and foolish. Two quotes for you.
Originally posted by bobby_108 @HFY108.com
I think since Robert's sifu is Lee Mu Shan Robert should address Benny as Sibak his kung fu uncle. A little something that may help Robert not to run his mouth as often as he does.

Originally Posted by chusauli
I get blamed for HFY's woes, but if you look at it, I did not create HFY with all its semblances, and secret culture. Nor have I said anything about HFY today.

I personally think all WCK is good; provided you can use it with proper timing and positioning.

As for GG, I respect him as a successful martial artist. As for BM, we have hashed things out between us, life is too short for such pettiness. I fail to see what I have done here and what I am blamed for. There is no evil "Chu gang".
Several TWC practitioners have participated in our HFY workshops and to a man their experiences according to them are that the two systems are entirely different. The only reasons that Victor sounds like the broken record he is. 1. Because he doesn't have the necessary experience to distinguish those differences nor any understanding of the fact that until 1850 all wing chun came from the same source and since that time the two branches of Hung Gun Biu and Wong Wah Bo now exist together as 2 distinct lines of WC something you need to know in order to begin to identify the differences and similarities. 2. Because Victor is willing to rely on past rumors and gossip you used trying to sabotage HFY in it's early days and he is unwilling to experience HFY for himself he continues to repeat the same old bullsh!t that you started. Rumors gossip, sabotage online, in books, through articles, WCML, WCK.com, secret emails, secret phone calls and here at KFO these things have been your main stay providing you an outlet to perform your deeds for the past 20 years thats old news everyone knows it.

Talking about respect? Why did Randy Williams want to kick your @ss maybe a little something about a lack of respect between you and his Sifu. You think all wing chun is good with good timing and positioning, that must not apply to TWC which you referred to as "cheap sex". Did Robert have respect for Master Moy Yat when you said he was just in it for the money, where you showing respect to William Cheung when you referred to him as a "pimp running a wh0re house" Where was your respect and mutual exchange when you charged Benny $1,000 dollars to read information from some notes you got from who knows where. Maybe the truth is really that you are a hypocrite a phony and here online talking sh!t out of both sides of your mouth looking for respect in public that you never give to anyone else either in public or private.

Robert has no traditional training so none to pass on and that is the real reason his band of internet thugs and intellectual midgets runs around aimlessly and disrespectfully arguing about things that don't concern them or apply to his so called lineage whatever that is now. Traditionally martial artist earn respect in order to receive answers face to face and not online something Robert doesn't know so he obviously can't teach.

Calling respected martial artist and masters "grandmas" is not a sign of respect nor is it a sign that you personally think all wing chun or martial arts are good. Robert as much as you would like for people to believe you can distance yourself from the actions of your students isn't the real truth that your students are very similar to you and that is what gives them the ability to separate you from your own actions. Your students are grandmas at making excuses when questions arise about things like you and Randy Williams or you disrupting a William Cheung seminar similar to that of Alan Orr disrupting Benny's workshop several years later same old tactics different face. Then you come online showing one face trying to hide the other. Bottom line Robert you need grow the f_ck up and you need to stop saying one thing in public and then doing another in private before anyone here believes the sh!t you say will ever match the sh!t that you do which you never back up with any sign of semblance of skill, secret ability or by simply being a man.Originally posted by Boxer1408 @hfy108.com
ALL WING CHUN came from the same source -"the similarities"


Quote:
....the necessary experience to distinguish those differences nor any understanding of the fact that until 1850 all wing chun came from the same source and since that time the two branches of Hung Gun Biu and Wong Wah Bo now exist together as 2 distinct lines of WC something you need to know in order to begin to identify the differences and similarities.

Until 1850, -"the differences"

Two branches:

1) Wong Wah Bo from Hung Suen

2) Hung Gun Biu from Hung Gun Wui


Quote:
Subj: HFY Clinic in Ohio Date: 11/18/2003

Grand Master Garrett Gee,

Thank You for the life altering experience at the last HFY Wing Chun Clinic held at The Wing Chun Museum, Master Benny Meng's Kung Fu School in Dayton Ohio. After training in the William Cheung system for over 12 years and teaching it for 4 years I now realize the details are missing in the system I was trained in. I am eternally grateful to you for showing me the light! And my next road to spiritual enlightenment through Martial Science in the HFY Wing Chun System.

Sincerely,

Sifu Dale Vits
Reply With Quote

Don't you think after 12 years of study he is capable of recognizing significant differences and real knowledge in and between the 2 systems.
Sifu Vits would not waste his time if he thought the 2 systems were the same thing under a different name.

"Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer"
Victor first you have to know who the real enemy are.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Canglong:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don't give a rat's a55 what Robert Chu may have once said about William Cheung?

Perhaps because I saw first hand what William Cheung did to Robert during a chi sao experience that Robert asked for at a seminar waaaay back in the day.

Or perhaps because Robert came to our first meeting in September, 1984 wherein myself, Phil Redmond, and Sonny Whitmore were discussing how we would conduct the TWC classes/school that William Cheung enlisted us to do - and Robert didn't do or say anything at that meeting that I found offensive...

So why would I care if he decided some years later to make some derogatory remarks about William Cheung? I know what's-what with Robert. Believe me I know.

But people change - and circumstances change. And Robert emailed me about a year or so ago out-of-the-blue and was very friendly. And his CWC book with Rene had some good information in it. Perfect? No. Was I satisfied with what was written (or not written) about William Cheung? No. But overall it was a pretty good effort at the time. And Alan and his guys are clearly talented and doing some good things of their own out on the competition circuit. Do I agree with everything Alan has said about "full body structure" wing chun? Hell no.

But so what?

Bottom line: from my persective there are more important things to do then rehash past insults and disagreements. Remember, I've always said that I LIKE what I've seen of HFY as a system. Keep that in mind.

AND RIGHT NOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT THIS HAS BECAME A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN SOMETHING MORE ABOUT ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE HFY/TWC SIMILARITIES AND CONNECTIONS.

[Alan Orr]

Canglong:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don't give a rat's a55 what Robert Chu may have once said about William Cheung?

Perhaps because I saw first hand what William Cheung did to Robert during a chi sao experience that Robert asked for at a seminar waaaay back in the day.

Or perhaps because Robert came to our first meeting in September, 1984 wherein myself, Phil Redmond, and Sonny Whitmore were discussing how we would conduct the TWC classes/school that William Cheung enlisted us to do - and Robert didn't do or say anything at that meeting that I found offensive...

So why would I care if he decided some years later to make some derogatory remarks about William Cheung? I know what's-what with Robert. Believe me I know.

But people change - and circumstances change. And Robert emailed me about a year or so ago out-of-the-blue and was very friendly. And his CWC book with Rene had some good information in it. Perfect? No. Was I satisfied with what was written (or not written) about William Cheung? No. But overall it was a pretty good effort at the time. And Alan and his guys are clearly talented and doing some good things of their own out on the competition circuit.

Bottom line: from my persective there are more important things to do then rehash past insults.

AND RIGHT NOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT THIS HAS BECAME A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN SOMETHING MORE ABOUT ANY AND ALL HFY/TWC SIMILARITIES.

Well said Victor. This is again HFY's sad way of trying to pit others against my teacher. As they can not stand up for themselves.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I understand that there's bad blood going on right now between Alan and guys like Tony and Savi....

but I'm not going to be drawn into it.

Okay...so we have two different threads going on here at the moment. The HFY/TWC comparison and the personal disputes. I can live with that.

But I would appreciate it if both sides just left me out of the personal disputes from here on in.

I'M HERE TO TALK CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES, TECHNIQUES.

And that's it.

[osprey3883]

Hi Phi,

re-
ALL fights start pre-contact. It makes since to train using both contact and pre-contact drills. Also, ALL WC that I'm famliar with use the concept of structure and forward energy.

I agree about the drilling contact and pre-contact drills. Based on the drill we are discussing though I don't believe Kiu Sau is being expressed.

Matt

[osprey3883]

CFT wrote-
Also, why have they remained in obscurity? Even Kulo/Gulao which seems to be relatively rare has more than one outside-of-China representative.

The Qing dynasty has been over for nigh-on 100 years, the Republic established in 1912. I'm sure all the fall out is over. So unless HFY-China took part in anti-Communist activity it is hard to see why they are so secretive.

There are multiple precidents for MA taught in private being exposed to the public in the last few generations. 2 examples outside of HFY being TWC and Yin Fu Bagua. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Style_Baguazhang as I understand it until Dr Xie Pieqi brought it to the public only part of the system was taught publically)

Being ignorant of TWC history, when GM Cheung brought out TWC to the public were there other TWC practitioners/representatives that were not his students that came out as well?

Matt

[Ultimatewingchun]

No. Just him. He claimed to have been the only one to learn TWC - privately from Yip Man during the time that he lived with Yip Man.

But this is ancient history by now - and has been discussed and debated numerous times over the last 25 years.

[CFT]

No. Just him. He claimed to have been the only one to learn TWC - privately from Yip Man during the time that he lived with Yip Man.

But this is ancient history by now - and has been discussed and debated numerous times over the last 25 years.And yet the controversy continues. You can't deny that Victor, even if you don't care about this particular issue.

There are multiple precedents for MA taught in private being exposed to the public in the last few generations. 2 examples outside of HFY being TWC and Yin Fu Bagua. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Style_Baguazhang as I understand it until Dr Xie Pieqi brought it to the public only part of the system was taught publicly)

Being ignorant of TWC history, when GM Cheung brought out TWC to the public were there other TWC practitioners/representatives that were not his students that came out as well?

MattNot sure if the analogy is totally applicable. I'm not questioning the validity of the HFYWCK curriculum and material. At this point, I'm interested in the history and relationships.

Is anyone questioning whether Men Baozhen taught Xie Peiqi, or whether Yin Fu taught Men Baozhen? Men Baozhen has at least 5 named "training brothers" according to the Wiki article. Gee sifu has 4 un-named sihing/dai. Can you understand my skepticism, even if you don't accept it?

[CFT]

It's funny/sad how threads develop and go off track.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello all,


Its good to see the same Zest in these discusions hahahaha.

I noticed this:


Alan you and Victor don't recognize the answer because you refuse to call a punch a punch and a kick a kick All WING CHUN COMES FROM THE SAME SOURCE
There are similarities that will always exist and if you throw in White Crane of course you will needlessly make things harder than need be and confusing. After 1850 there exist at least 2 branches of Wing Chun that of Wong Wa Bo/ Leung Yee Tai and that of Hung Gun Biu and the Boxer Society. This explains why some things may now look different.

***

My replies below:

Alan you and Victor don't recognize the answer because you refuse to call a punch a punch and a kick a kick All WING CHUN COMES FROM THE SAME SOURCE

In order to make this sort of statement you need more data to back it up. What is the Source (please dont repeat the shaolin mantra) that all sprung from and what happen in the mid 1800's that caused the paradigm shift? JR

After 1850 there exist at least 2 branches of Wing Chun that of Wong Wa Bo/ Leung Yee Tai and that of Hung Gun Biu and the Boxer Society. This explains why some things may now look different.

Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai are two "main" lines of Wing Chun that can be traced and are not to be lumped in to the same category. Both did different stuff. According to Lao Ba, Wong Wah Bo (a native of Kulo) taught the San Chin (facing) or Straight Body version of Wing Chun. This is the paradigm shift of 1850. Leung Yee Tai did the Yim/Leung family version.

So, your linking of WWB & LYT as one lineage is not accurate. The two main WC sects are the Males playing Males and Males playing Females. One had affiliation with the Lee Man Mao group and the other was more quiet. This is also why there is a sh*t load of cross contaminated stories between families. Also, you need to consider the fact that many people wore Red Turbans when involved with LMM. This does not mean they were the Secret Society preserving the original art as suggested. Pre-1850 system! It actually means they have more relation to WWB & LMM and their history has been intertwined. JR

*

There are similarities that will always exist and if you throw in White Crane of course you will needlessly make things harder than need be and confusing.

Throwing in White Crane does not make anything harder. It actually simplifies things big time! We can use it to trace our root but also our differences. You need to find the root (or parents) otherwise anyone can try to claim anything is anything. The Lee Man Mao group and the "softer" (snake style) Crane would never in a miliion years associate if they had no common background. The people were just two tribal back then. Crane being a common ground made for a long lasting friendship that has to this day been maintained. JR


So, the More Likely scenerio is!!!! On the Junk there was:

Males playing Females (Yim & Leung art) "pre-1850"

Males playing Males (WWB art) "after 1850"

Lee Man Mao's friends. "more crane than wing chun and does not have SLT root"


Just some thoughts for the fun discussion. In the end, WHO CARES! It would be beneficial if HFY would figure out what is the Military/Monk systems they were supposed to be born from? This makes for better technical discussions and can show where/why there was a paradigm shift etc...

After all the research, the difference between the two main lines of WC are very little IMO.

Gotta run!

[osprey3883]

Victor,
Thanks for the clarification, I am definitely not trying to stir anything up with TWC, I just didn't know.

Matt

[reneritchie]

Hey Jimbo:

that many people wore Red Turbans

Wore opera costumes (how cool must that have been?!) and red turbans. Here ya go:

http://www.w1ng.com/lee-man-mao-li-wenmao-of-the-red-boat-opera/

"[Li Wenmao] himself and the other general officers wore the opera clothes. Later as the insurrectionists increased radically, the opera clothes fell short. So they used the red kerchief instead of the helmets, hence they were called Red Kerchief Army."

http://www.w1ng.com/history-of-the-red-boat-opera/

"In 1854, Fenghuangyi Cantonese Opera performer Li Wenmao and Chen Kaihe, the leader of Guangdong Tiandi Assembly, rose up in Guangzhou, changing the members of several thousand red boats into soldiers, wearing opera costumes and red muffle, called “Red Muffle Army”. "

[Jim Roselando]

RR,


It's my understanding, according to the historical records (well documented), that the red turbans were worn by the people of Foshan who showed up to support Lee Man-Mao and the Red Junk troops (who reportedly marched in full costume -- how awesome would that have been to see?!).

So the opera performers weren't wearing them (they had the fancy hats), but because pretty much everyone supporting them were (the crowds), it became known as the Red Turban Rebellion.

The support of the common people was key to controlling Foshan, and when it was lost (after some unfortunate incidents), control of the city went back to the Qing.

***

Excellent!

Mucho Gusto!

See, all of this stuff can be checked out and reasonably traced from different sources. My point is the Red Turban people has more to do with LMM.

Thanks again! U Da Man!


;)

[JPinAZ]

Hey Jimbo:

Wore opera costumes (how cool must that have been?!) and red turbans. Here ya go:

http://www.w1ng.com/lee-man-mao-li-wenmao-of-the-red-boat-opera/

http://www.w1ng.com/history-of-the-red-boat-opera/

Rene,

Curious, who wrote these articles? It just says 'historical source'. Where do these 'facts' come from? Not saying they are right/wrong, but to provide links to articles doesn't really prove a point one way or the other does it?

[reneritchie]

JRjr:

No worries, I edited in the links above...

BTW- I haven't seen anything hard on the Leung family being father/son/brother, vs. extended clan. Clans were big back then (internecine feuding and all...), and as close and tight as nuclear (nucular?) families, so the language never seemed clear to me.

But we can save that tangent for another thread...

[reneritchie]

@JPinAZ

No worries, I think it's important to cite and source as much as possible.

The first was by the government of Foshan, the second by the Foshan museum. (I mirrored them on my site because the Foshan servers seem to go down all the time -- Genuine Windows Advantage, no doubt...). The originating links are provided right above the quotes in the mirrored articles (the titles in red).

Wakeman has also covered this on his book, Strangers at the Gate (http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FStrangers-Gate-Social-Disorder-1839-1861%2Fdp%2F0520212398%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26q id%3D1195422678%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wingchunkuencom&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325), which is focused exclusively on the history of the Red Turban Rebellion.

[Phil Redmond]

. . . . Several years ago while on a trip to Mexico while being served by a dark hair dark skin female waitress some small talk ensued and one of our guys asked her if she spoke Spanish. The waitress kind of caught off guard proclaimed rather forcefully she was not Mexican but Native American Indian.

A little history note: Were you in Vera Cruz or Oaxaca? There are Black/Afro-Mexicans there. Some of them deny their ethicity and claim to be Indians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSdfBvSjyVY
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Mexican
http://www.afromexico.com/
http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/feature/ethnic/bv/vaughnindex.html
http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/VernaG/EH/F/manif/lectures/black_mexicans.htm

[Ultimatewingchun]

How about some answers? :rolleyes:

What exactly is Deui Ying Kiu Sau from the HFY perspective?

And if not Savi - what do you have to say about it, Levi? Osprey?

[anerlich]

Some users here mudsling MKF around here, including you.

I originally wrote a review of MKF which many thought was pretty fair. Run a poll should you want to dispute that. I got a fair bit of mud slung, I got plenty more of it left to return. Criticism's only a problem if you're pretending to be something you aren't.

I was just pointing out that the things the authors of MKF are being accused of, can be found in other areas if one chooses to really look into it.

I guess you could make a case that they're no worse than, say, William Cheung or Andrew Draheim when it comes to trash talking, so they shouldn't be singled out.

Leave it there, OK. But then we head off into the bizarrosphere.

The website passage you "point out" quoted a passage written by an HFY guy, leaving out one sentence. This you construe as either an attack or misrepresentation, but it's by your own guy.

I'll accept criticism, on behalf, for plagiarism, about which I've contacted Rene, but the rest of this "insight" is complete fruitloopery.

I'd get an ice pack for your head because the logic circuits in your brain must be overheating.

I think you are the one that needs to spend more time in front of a mirror, though having seen your photo in MKF, and imagining how that face would look with its foot in its mouth, I can understand your reluctance.

[Phil Redmond]

I have to start this off with a disclaimer because I know this could be a touchy subject. I'm asking out of curiousity.This is a forum for discussion so I've always wanted to know this so I'm going to ask.
I've never read MKF but I hear some people say that it's written as if HFY is the real kung fu and other WC systems aren't. I just would like to know what was said for people to think that. I hopr the HFY people don't take offense to my query.

[JPinAZ]

I have to start this off with a disclaimer because I know this could be a touchy subject. I'm asking out of curiousity.This is a forum for discussion so I've always wanted to know this so I'm going to ask.
I've never read MKF but I hear some people say that it's written as if HFY is the real kung fu and other WC systems aren't. I just would like to know what was said for people to think that. I hopr the HFY people don't take offense to my query.

Phil,

Since you post the question as something you've heard, and not your own opinion, I don't see why anyone would take offence. Even if the above statement was your opinion (right/wrong/or whatever), why should anyone take offence? I mean we are each allowed to have our own thoughts on things right?

Regardless, I am thinking instead of taking someone else's opinion on something (which is only based on their own experiences with which to draw conclusions), IMO your answer would best be answered by yourself after reading the book. If then you agree or disagree with them, it is at least your own opinion.

Also keep in mind, as I understand it, the book is 2 parts: one, the findings of the VTM's research into sources of WC, and two, an introduction to the HFY lineage. So opinions can vary greatly depending on what each person expects to get from the book, thier individual experiences, views, etc.

WHat I do find curious, if you are interested in what is said in the book, why not just read it?

BTW. do you have access to a copy?

[Alan Orr]

Phil,

Since you post the question as something you've heard, and not your own opinion, I don't see why anyone would take offence. Even if the above statement was your opinion (right/wrong/or whatever), why should anyone take offence? I mean we are each allowed to have our own thoughts on things right?

Regardless, I am thinking instead of taking someone else's opinion on something (which is only based on their own experiences with which to draw conclusions), IMO your answer would best be answered by yourself after reading the book. If then you agree or disagree with them, it is at least your own opinion.

Also keep in mind, as I understand it, the book is 2 parts: one, the findings of the VTM's research into sources of WC, and two, an introduction to the HFY lineage. So opinions can vary greatly depending on what each person expects to get from the book, thier individual experiences, views, etc.

WHat I do find curious, if you are interested in what is said in the book, why not just read it?

BTW. do you have access to a copy?


Interesting, as I have the book and it does not make clear that it is in two parts. It is in 9 chapters, all but the first chapter are on HFY. The only VTM page seems to be a VTM Mission statement with a picture of First Gen Yip Man students.

It does say in chapter one that ' ten years of research by the vtm staff and contributors yielded verifiable facts and conclusions'

Question- What are these verifiable facts? verifiable in what manner??

I keep hearing this from the HFY, that the VTM has confirm it's history. I asked the VTM and they said it was the opinon of the VTM. This is not then fact is it.

Opinon is fine to have, but not to put out as fact.

Maybe I have missed the documents on these facts. Please share.

[Nick Forrer]

Maybe I have missed the documents on these facts. Please share.

You obviously missed the computer generated pictures and the stills from the Hk film. There were some nice hand drawn pictures too. And (a personal favourite) a picture of a pot. Dont forget the pot.

[Nick Forrer]

Actually Alan if you want a book on wing chun its hard to beat fighting by Bob Breen. The wing chun on display in that im sure would meet with your approval.

[anerlich]

The best way might be to post the section on "Popular Wing Chun" here. I do not want to tempt potential copyright Nazis or would do it myself.

There are other allusions to only HFY and Chi Sim sharing the "true" line from Shaolin on family trees, etc. in the book, but they are a bit more scattered.

In any case, many large bookstores have it and it shouldn't be difficult to browse should you want to try before you buy.

It's fair to say that it is in two sections along the lines of those mentioned. Decide for yourself whether the history section is objective or not.

From my review:

"There is a time honoured tradition in Wing Chun of denigrating and bashing the efforts of other practitioners, and the big disappointment of this book is that it avoids the opportunity to allow its system to stand alone, but instead tries to bring itself to the top by putting others down, just like too many before it. All other lineages (except the one practised by the guy who wrote the foreword) are lumped into something called "Popular Wing Chun" ,and used as a straw man at regular intervals. Bruce Lee is characterised as a worthy seeker after martial truth, robbed of his opportunity to truly self-actualize becuase the HFY formula was kept from him. Sportfighting is denigrated, the authors referencing that famous WC expert Gichin Funakoshi to bolster their argument. Generalisations and judgements are made about other WC systems which are just plain wrong. Other legitimate historians are also maligned.

"Without this, it would get 4.5 stars from me. With the style and sifu bashing, it never will. I wanted to give it 3.5 but I can't."

I had no contact with HFY prior to writing the review, other than what I had read on the web and WCML. I really wanted to learn about the system as its apparent similarity to my own (which I now see is only apparent) intrigued me. It was my honest opinion. It was around this time some of the battle lines were drawn, and things have proceeded pretty much as is from then on.

There are a preponderance of glowing reviews on Amazon. Some of the reviewers have links with the authors.

[Alan Orr]

Actually Alan if you want a book on wing chun its hard to beat fighting by Bob Breen. The wing chun on display in that im sure would meet with your approval.

You are a bad man Nick! LOL

[Alan Orr]

You obviously missed the computer generated pictures and the stills from the Hk film. There were some nice hand drawn pictures too. And (a personal favourite) a picture of a pot. Dont forget the pot.

I did forget the pot! **** it!

[Phil Redmond]

Phil,

Since you post the question as something you've heard, and not your own opinion, I don't see why anyone would take offence. Even if the above statement was your opinion (right/wrong/or whatever), why should anyone take offence? I mean we are each allowed to have our own thoughts on things right?

Regardless, I am thinking instead of taking someone else's opinion on something (which is only based on their own experiences with which to draw conclusions), IMO your answer would best be answered by yourself after reading the book. If then you agree or disagree with them, it is at least your own opinion.

Also keep in mind, as I understand it, the book is 2 parts: one, the findings of the VTM's research into sources of WC, and two, an introduction to the HFY lineage. So opinions can vary greatly depending on what each person expects to get from the book, thier individual experiences, views, etc.

WHat I do find curious, if you are interested in what is said in the book, why not just read it?

BTW. do you have access to a copy?
This has been a sensitive issue for HFY people. I remember going through something similar when everyone was trashing TWC online. I don't want anyone tho think that I would do the same thing. That's why I wanted to be careful with my question. I don't have access to the book nor do I have plans to buy it. I just wanted to hear what the HFY response would be to my question.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Again: Here's part of what I wrote about it in Brian Scanlon's (Beyond1) wingchun wikipedia:

THE CENTRAL LINE
In TWC it all starts with the Central Line principle, which defines the area a practitioner, without pivoting his hips, can cross his wrists evenly at the lower, middle, and upper gates when in a neutral stance. The very first movement you make with both arms after opening up your stance in any of the three forms - and immediately before throwing the vertical punch with your left hand - is the move that defines the central line.

Recall the X-like movement (or scissor-like) motion your arms make when they go down from the chambers to the lower gates. Now freeze that movement for a moment. In other words, before rotating the X/scissor position up toward the higher gates - and while still in the down position - start moving both arms to your right.

Remember not to pivot your hips or shoulders, and notice when the hands and fingers would start to no longer reach to the exact same distance evenly if you were to continue to move them to the right (because your right arm and hand would now be extending further than the left). In other words, you’ve just reached the eastern border of your central line.

(For purposes of simplicity and clarity I will take the liberty of introducing a terminology of my own that I use to teach TWC to my students). Whatever direction you are facing, call that North. South is therefore behind you. East is to your right, and West is to your left. Now back to the Central Line.

Move the X/scissors to the left (west) until you reach the same position just described. You have now totally defined (or traced) an imaginary horizontal line. To put that another way, an east-west plane known as the Central Line. And if you position your body in relation to your opponent so that all blocks, parries, strikes, etc. only travel within the parameters of this central line - then you will always maximize the use of both arms for simultaneous attack and defense, and minimize the target area you present to your opponent.

With this position, you maximize your ability to control the straight line path available for attack and defense, while attempting to force the opponent to use an outside path - and therefore an increased distance for him to travel. So in theory this will make your moves structurally faster.

Now when using the Central Line principle, the practitioner will FACE THE POINT OF CONTACT with his vertical, middle-of-the-body centerline when blocking or parrying blows coming in at him, while “returning the fire” in simultaneous (or near simultaneous) attack on SOME OTHER POINT along the east-west horizontal central line. (Although there are some exceptions to this rule which might occasionally require a block or parry to be performed on some other point on the central line -and not on the main middle of the body center line). Nonetheless, blocks and parries are almost always performed on the Centerline.


AND NOW THIS:

MORE ABOUT THE CENTRAL LINE
The Central Line was described as the HORIZONTAL east-west LINE directly in front of you, and its borders are set by the points past which your wrists won’t evenly cross each other in the X-like manner described earlier.

And within those borders both of your arms and hands can reach to the same exact east-west distance without having to turn a shoulder or hip - thereby maximizing speed, efficiency, and the ability to perform simultaneous blocks and strikes.

But in fact the Central Line is more than this. It is not just a line, and it is not just a “horizontal” line. Those words are useful when first being introduced to the concept -since that distinguishes it from the “vertical” middle of the body (main) Centerline. But let’s take the definition a step further. The Central Line is the PLANE (or grid) in front of you in that contains more than an east-west horizontal line.

It is also the vertical line I’m occupying at any given moment running up and down through those east-west parameters. So if I were lined up in a right hand leading neutral side (body) stance while facing my opponent’s center of mass (COM) - my hands and arms would be occupying a point on both a horizontal and a vertical line - and hence the use of the term GRID (or plane).

AND AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE:

The term Kiu sau is not used in TWC..but since I know what the term means I can translate it into TWC....it's briding concepts based on the range of distance you're at. So for example, in Moy Yat's VT he referred to what he called cheng kiu sao as "long arm" chi sao.

In TWC terms - it has to do with the 5 stages of combat:

1) Non contact stage

2) Contact stage

3) Exchange stage

4) Pursuit

5) Retreat

Now let's just stick with the TWC bong/lop sao "drills" - and their related bridging concepts. These are about ranges that are at different distances from the opponent's body and limbs at any given moment (ie.- longer than the tan/bong/fuk distance used in basic double arm chi sao - which is a very close range).

One such bong/lop drill/concept starts from a non contact range with one opponent stepping into a front stance with a straight punch toward the other man's head from a neutral side (body) stance while the man being atacked is in a front stance...

WITH THE MAN BEING ATTACKED now moving his lead leg back into the neutral side stance as he engages the punch with bong/wu near the opponent's wrist/forearm area - at which point he begins his lop with the wu hand and starts to convert the bong into a punch AS HE NOW STEPS up into the front stance...

(at which point the other guy defends with bong/lop as he steps back from his front stance into the neutral side (body) stance...

So this is one example of a rudimentary bong/lop drill BRIDGING CONCEPT - and there are many others, ie.- the punch coming in could be a high round punch, a low straight punch, a low round punch...

Or both partners could be starting from front stances and neither of them would ever retreat into the neutral side stance - but would simply be half stepping back and forth from the front stances AND THEREFORE AT A SLGHTLY CLOSER BRIDGING RANGE...

BUT WITH CAREFUL ATTENTION ALWAYS BEING paid to distance and WHICH PART of the limb contacts which part of his limb... because oftentimes we bridge closer by seizing his ELBOW with the lop (especially so against the high round punch - which was originally blocked with a bil sao - followed by the other hand doing the "threading" hand from underneath - which then proceeds to seize his elbow while converting itself into lop)...ETC.

BUT THESE ARE MORE THAN JUST DRILLS - THEY ARE BRIDGING (KIU) concepts that also require facing the points of contact with the main centerline in different ways depending upon the distance - for sometimes we are on different lines other than the main centerline, ie.- the chest line, shoulder line,etc. - all part of the CENTRAL LINE CONCEPT...in addition to the MAIN centerline face-your-opponent's-center-and-attack-forward principle.

NOW RELATING THIS TO THE HFY CONCEPTS OF TIME, SPACE, AND ENERGY:

The Central Line defines the 180 degree arc that HFY speaks of - and defines the SPACE (and therefore the GATES) one is fighting to occupy and defend. And the TIME one needs to make attacks and defenses palatable at ANY GIVEN DISTANCE - since TIME is so crucial AT CLOSER DISTANCES/RANGES - but must always be taken into account.

Which also determines the ENERGY (force) needed to defend the SPACE we want to own in any encounter at any given moment. For in order to maintain one's structure as it is defined by the CENTRAL LINE and the defense of the 6 gates - (and the basic body structure used in TWC)...one must be able to determine the amount of ENERGY/FORCE being used against them not just through a visual but mainly by the BRIDGE telegraphing the information through CONTACT REFLEXES...

Reflexes gained through the dan chi sao, double arm chi sao, Parallel arm chi sao (done from a front stance)...cross arm chi sao (also done from a front stance)...BUT AT A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT ON THE BODY, ie.- the wrists/fingers being in contact (but just one arm from each partner engaging at the start)...thereby being at a longer range than what double arm chi sao provides (forearm)...since longer range kicking can also come into play when doing parallel arm and cross arm chi sao - other than simply the heel kick used from the basic neutral position when engaged in double arm chi sao. (and TWC cross arm and parallel arm "chi sao" is actually serving a very similar function to what HFY calls kiu sao - albeit the terminology is different.

So in TWC the ranges on the limb that determines what range of "kiu sao" one is in (ie.- the TWC stages of combat specifically know as the "contact" stage and the "exchange" stage - - and it is the EXCHANGE STAGE that gets very deep into when exactly to go from wrist contact to an elbow capture/check/redirection/manipulation (ie - destroy his structure as is learned in the chum kiu form....

so these ranges on the limb have to do with fingers/wrists/forearms/elbows - and the repective distances that contact on one's own limb means - and what it means to have your bridge contacting his elbow, for example.


THESE TWC CONCEPTS (AND THEIR CORRESPONDING DRILLS) ARE MORE AKIN TO WHAT HFY CALLS KIU SAU. (although I suspect that some of the subsets of limb ranges have different names in HFY than merely "kiu sau").

So Kiu sau" defines the length of the bridge and the extension of the arms at any given moment in TIME (since the distances between you and the opponent are regulated by what parts of the arm are used at any given moment - and will therefore determine HOW MUCH TIME one has to defend the GATES and the arc of the CENTRAL LINE.

[JPinAZ]

Victor,

I appreciate your efforts in explaining your WC, wich BTW is TWC in this case, and not HFY (in case you forgot:)). But, you might be better sticking to just TWC, because your conclusions and comparison drawing to HFY is rediculous. Your post shows that you do not truely understand much, if anything, about HFY past very surface level information, and clearly almost nothing about HFY Kiu Sau. And almost nothing about what T/S/E means to HFY. Which is to be expected since you admittedly do not have really ANY hands-on experience with the system.
Your efforts at trying to draw and explain similarities between the two, while only knowing the workings of one, makes you sound like you think you are an expert in both - which you are clearly not from what you posted here.

BTW, why is it so improtant to you to feel you have to prove how identicle the systems are? What is your motive in this? Nothing personal, but you are failing horribly from what I am reading here. I do not know much about TWC, but I can see that what you describe isn't hte same as HFY. Granted, there are some 'similarities', but also many differences from what you write here. And I'm not just talking differences in terms - which is clearly what you are trying to say here: that the only difference between HFY and TWC are the terms.
You aren't even closely qualified to make those statements or draw those conclusions. And you should be embarrassed even trying to do this.

[Ultimatewingchun]

No, I'm not going to just stick to TWC. I'm going to show you...piece-by-piece...just how close the two systems really are. :cool:

I've collected a fair amount of information about HFY in the words/terms used by Garrett Gee, Savi, passing_through, and some others...

and I'm only just beginning to translate them into basic English in general and into TWC English in particular.

I expect to be covering all of the following by the end of this thread:

Time
Space
Energy
Heaven
Man
Earth
Sup Ming Dim
Bong Laap Kiu sau
Deui Ying Kiu Sau
Dim Buhn Kiu Sau
Kwan Sau Kiu Sau
Saarn Sing Jong Kiu Sau
Gate Theory
Range Control
Energy Concepts
Chi Kiu
Kiu Sau Saam Sing Jong Faat
Kiu Sau Sei Dim Buhn Jong Faat

[JPinAZ]

The term Kiu sau is not used in TWC..but since I know what the term means I can translate it into TWC....it's briding concepts based on the range of distance you're at. So for example, in Moy Yat's VT he referred to what he called cheng kiu sao as "long arm" chi sao.

In TWC terms - it has to do with the 5 stages of combat:

1) Non contact stage

2) Contact stage

3) Exchange stage

4) Pursuit

5) Retreat

Cool, but this is not what Kiu Sau Means to HFY


No, I'm not going to just stick to TWC. I'm going to show you...piece-by-piece...just how close the two systens really are

Really?? lets look at your last post:

NOW RELATING THIS TO THE HFY CONCEPTS OF TIME, SPACE, AND ENERGY:


Are you not taking your meds or something?? Sounds like you are talking about HFY here. Further, sounds like you THINK you know enough about HFY's concept of T/S/E to make comparisons and draw conclusions to me..

The Central Line defines the 180 degree arc that HFY speaks of - and defines the SPACE (and therefore the GATES) one is fighting to occupy and defend. And the TIME one needs to make attacks and defenses palatable at ANY GIVEN DISTANCE - since TIME is so crucial AT CLOSER DISTANCES/RANGES - but must always be taken into account.

If this is true, then your Central Line concept description earlier wasn't correct. How can there be 180 degrees arc if you specifically say that the Central Line concept plays within the bounds of the shoulders. Again, you clearly do not understand HFY's kiu sau concepts.

Which also determines the ENERGY (force) needed to defend the SPACE we want to own in any encounter at any given moment. For in order to maintain one's structure as it is defined by the CENTRAL LINE and the defense of the 6 gates - (and the basic body structure used in TWC)...one must be able to determine the amount of ENERGY/FORCE being used against them not just through a visual but mainly by the BRIDGE telegraphing the information through CONTACT REFLEXES....

sounds again like you feel you have a firm grasp on HFY's T/S/E concepts as well as 6-gate theory to me... How is that even possible with your VERY limited knoledge and NO hands'on experience?

Reflexes gained through the dan chi sao, double arm chi sao, Parallel arm chi sao (done from a front stance)...cross arm chi sao (also done from a front stance)...BUT AT A DIFFERENT STARTING POINT ON THE BODY, ie.- the wrists/fingers being in contact (but just one arm from each partner engaging at the start)...thereby being at a longer range than what double arm chi sao provides (forearm)...since longer range kicking can also come into play when doing parallel arm and cross arm chi sao - other than simply the heel kick used from the basic neutral position when engaged in double arm chi sao. (and TWC cross arm and parallel arm "chi sao" is actually serving a very similar function to what HFY calls kiu sao - albeit the terminology is different.....

Good thing you are ONLY speaking for TWC... again, showing your total lack of understanding in HFY as well as it's Kiu Sau.... No offence, but your statement in your last post is soundsing more rediculous by the second..

So in TWC the ranges on the limb that determines what range of "kiu sao" one is in (ie.- the TWC stages of combat specifically know as the "contact" stage and the "exchange" stage - - and it is the EXCHANGE STAGE that gets very deep into when exactly to go from wrist contact to an elbow capture/check/redirection/manipulation (ie - destroy his structure as is learned in the chum kiu form.......

Also making a good case here for the vast DIFFERENCES in TWC's 'Kiu Sau' vs. HFY's Kiu Sau....

....THESE TWC CONCEPTS (AND THEIR CORRESPONDING DRILLS) ARE MORE AKIN TO WHAT HFY CALLS KIU SAU. (although I suspect that some of the subsets of limb ranges have different names in HFY than merely "kiu sau").

So Kiu sau" defines the length of the bridge and the extension of the arms at any given moment in TIME (since the distances between you and the opponent are regulated by what parts of the arm are used at any given moment - and will therefore determine HOW MUCH TIME one has to defend the GATES and the arc of the CENTRAL LINE.

one more time:
No, I'm not going to just stick to TWC. I'm going to show you...piece-by-piece...just how close the two systens really are.

Vic, I have to say, I do applaud your efforts in sharing your system, and trying to show understanding for HFY's concepts, bridging platforms, etc. Clearly more open to discussion than most here. But, it is clear you really just do not have the understanding of HFY necessary to draw conclusions or comparisons beteen HFY & TWC, not matter how hard you try. I can honestly say the same as well, that is why I do not do it. And I think that is also why you see that most HFY members don't do this as well.

Again, out of curiousity, why is it so improtant to you to feel you have to prove how identical the systems are? What is your motive in this?

[Ultimatewingchun]

This post from osprey bears repeating also:

Victor,
As has been stated before we as HFY members are not going to post videos out of respect for GM Gee's wishes. Ask all you want, it's not happening.
Good post though, easy to follow....(The one about the TWC bong/lop drills)...What you describe IMO is similar to one of the Bong Laap progressions we have in our Bong Laap Kiu Sau.

Matt

[Ultimatewingchun]

And this from Levi/taltos:

Parlati Sifu,

I thank you for your posts that attempt to keep the discussion productive. I have a few questions.

I am pretty sure that I understand what you mean by the central line and how you find it. I just wanted to verify (and not assume) some things...

You mentioned how to "draw" the central line from the lower cross hands position. I understand that this is how you define the left and right (east and west, as you said) boundaries.

1. Am I correct in that this left and right boundary exists at all heights (the down position is just an exercise to "draw" it)?

2. Does the left and right boundary change at different heights?

3. Is there a specific distance from the body that this line exists at, or does it extend into infinity?

4. Finally, are there specific lower and higher positions in which this line no longer exists (i.e. above the head, below the waist, etc.)?

Thank you.

-Levi

[Ultimatewingchun]

And this from Wayfaring:

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun
This is where the concept of TIME has a very important application. I will probably be spending most of my time operating on a smaller east-west plane at a very close distance to the opponent - because the outside path won't help him loop around me IN TIME to stop himself from getting hit or kicked.

4) As for high positions - in theory the line still exists...but again, from a very close distance I can focus on going straight in and not be too concerned about some looping overhand strike - because the opponent is too far out of his own Central Line to be able to hit me IN TIME before I hit him.

If, on the other hand, he were standing some 4 feet away or more, for example, when he tries an overhand shot that starts out looping outside of the "exact" Central line boundaries as they are defined within the TWC SLT, I would have no choice but to have to deal with it - ie.- defend against it with a high bong sao or a high bil sao, or perhaps some footwork, or whatever...since he might be INSIDE my central line parameters too quickly for me to just go forward and strike. So the concept of speed - as it relates to TIME - must be taken into account as well. My eyes must tell me on a split-second how long will it take for his outside-the-Centraline strike to make it inside and therefore be a threat.

As for below the waist: it's still the same east-west parameters but preferably (and again this will be TIME and SPACE dependent)...preferably I'm using legs against legs in attack and defense.

Victor,

I'm starting to pick up the idea that some of what you talk about central lines may share some similarities with how we deal with facing. Honestly, I don't think I have a good grasp on what you mean by central lines yet over discussions and your writeups. I'm going to go over a few of your posts on it and see if I can get a better picture.

[JPinAZ]

This post from osprey bears repeating also:

Victor,
As has been stated before we as HFY members are not going to post videos out of respect for GM Gee's wishes. Ask all you want, it's not happening.
Good post though, easy to follow....(The one about the TWC bong/lop drills)...What you describe IMO is similar to one of the Bong Laap progressions we have in our Bong Laap Kiu Sau.

Matt

(I'll use caps and bold letters where necessary so you can understand :p )

Indeed, I agree with Matt. Your TWC Bong/lop DRILL does sound similar to SOME HFY Bong Lap DRILLS. But that's all. Drills. There is also some sever diffferences in the SAME drills that you yourself have proven, along with the video Phil was kind enough to post. Like I mentioned in the past, the fact that it 'sounds' like you are giving up space in your drill clrearly goes against the concepts and principles that support HFY's bong lap DRILLS.
Regardless, the fact that Matt said the drills seem similar does not instantly mean that you understand ALL of HFY Kiu Sau. Or any of it really.

No offence, but you just might not understand that much of HFY Kiu Sau as you think. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why the attachment to HFY/TWC commonalities? What are you trying to prove here?

[Ultimatewingchun]

There's also this one:

***Levi, thanks for your interest in keeping this a discussion about the two systems and not a personality/political conflict thing.

Now as for the questions raised in your post:

1) Yes, you are correct in that assumption. That's why the x-like (scissor-like) movement is done both low and then high. To signify that the east-west Central Line boundaries apply at all the heights in-between low-and-high as well.

2) No, they are always the same. As I indicated in my answer to number 1. The area most be protected, occupied, (the concept of SPACE), regardless of whether your opponent's attack is low, high, or anything in-between.

3) The east-west line extends to wherever your opponent is at any given moment. Regardless of how far away he is. But obviously the closer you are to him the more you can confine your attacks and defenses to a smaller section of the east-west parameter IN REAL TIME.

This is where the concept of TIME has a very important application. I will probably be spending most of my time operating on a smaller east-west plane at a very close distance to the opponent - because the outside path won't help him loop around me IN TIME to stop himself from getting hit or kicked.

4) As for high positions - in theory the line still exists...but again, from a very close distance I can focus on going straight in and not be too concerned about some looping overhand strike - because the opponent is too far out of his own Central Line to be able to hit me IN TIME before I hit him.

If, on the other hand, he were standing some 4 feet away or more, for example, when he tries an overhand shot that starts out looping outside of the "exact" Central line boundaries as they are defined within the TWC SLT, I would have no choice but to have to deal with it - ie.- defend against it with a high bong sao or a high bil sao, or perhaps some footwork, or whatever...since he might be INSIDE my central line parameters too quickly for me to just go forward and strike. So the concept of speed - as it relates to TIME - must be taken into account as well. My eyes must tell me in a split-second how long will it take for his outside-the-Centraline strike to make it inside and therefore be a threat.

As for below the waist: it's still the same east-west parameters but preferably (and again this will be TIME and SPACE dependent)...preferably I'm using legs against legs in attack and defense.

***Levi, thanks for your interest in keeping this a discussion about the two systems and not a personality/political conflict thing.

Now as for the questions raised in your post:

1) Yes, you are correct in that assumption. That's why the x-like (scissor-like) movement is done both low and then high. To signify that the east-west Central Line boundaries apply at all the heights in-between low-and-high as well.

2) No, they are always the same. As I indicated in my answer to number 1. The area most be protected, occupied, (the concept of SPACE), regardless of whether your opponent's attack is low, high, or anything in-between.

3) The east-west line extends to wherever your opponent is at any given moment. Regardless of how far away he is. But obviously the closer you are to him the more you can confine your attacks and defenses to a smaller section of the east-west parameter IN REAL TIME.

This is where the concept of TIME has a very important application. I will probably be spending most of my time operating on a smaller east-west plane at a very close distance to the opponent - because the outside path won't help him loop around me IN TIME to stop himself from getting hit or kicked.

4) As for high positions - in theory the line still exists...but again, from a very close distance I can focus on going straight in and not be too concerned about some looping overhand strike - because the opponent is too far out of his own Central Line to be able to hit me IN TIME before I hit him.

If, on the other hand, he were standing some 4 feet away or more, for example, when he tries an overhand shot that starts out looping outside of the "exact" Central line boundaries as they are defined within the TWC SLT, I would have no choice but to have to deal with it - ie.- defend against it with a high bong sao or a high bil sao, or perhaps some footwork, or whatever...since he might be INSIDE my central line parameters too quickly for me to just go forward and strike. So the concept of speed - as it relates to TIME - must be taken into account as well. My eyes must tell me in a split-second how long will it take for his outside-the-Centraline strike to make it inside and therefore be a threat.

As for below the waist: it's still the same east-west parameters but preferably (and again this will be TIME and SPACE dependent)...preferably I'm using legs against legs in attack and defense

[JPinAZ]

And this from Levi/taltos:

Parlati Sifu,

I thank you for your posts that attempt to keep the discussion productive. I have a few questions.

I am pretty sure that I understand what you mean by the central line and how you find it. I just wanted to verify (and not assume) some things...
.......-Levi

Victor, you really are missing my point. What Levi is saying is one, that he thanks you for your efforts at positive discussion. As do I. And two, that hs UNDERSTAND what you mean. That doesn't mean you UNDERSTAND HFY by default...

Unless you are trying to say something else here?

Again, what is all this trying to prove? and why?

[Ultimatewingchun]

What this will prove - by the end of this thread...

is that the two systems are essentially one-and-the-same.

Just stay tuned......

Why?

(Because I believe the two men learned from the same source).

And it's about time that fact was revealed.

[JPinAZ]

And this from Wayfaring:
Victor,

I'm starting to pick up the idea that some of what you talk about central lines may share some similarities with how we deal with facing. Honestly, I don't think I have a good grasp on what you mean by central lines yet over discussions and your writeups. I'm going to go over a few of your posts on it and see if I can get a better picture.

I also agree with Dave here. But again, this doesn't mean you understand HFY, just that he understand you and sees some similarities.

Are you trying to say that these commentsof HFY members you are reposting is implying that you yourself understand HFY and that the 2 systems are one and the same because both sides can see some similarities?? I think you are grossly overlooking the DIFFERENCES that exist between the two as well...

[Ultimatewingchun]

And I'm inviting you, Savi, or whoever else, to show me in plain English what you think those differences are.

And then let's see whether they are major or minor differences.

[JPinAZ]

What this will prove - by the end of this thread...

is that the two systems are essentially one-and-the-same.

Just stay tuned......

Why?

(Because I believe the two men learned from the same source).

Cool, I applaud your honesty. But Vic, even IF by some remote chance you are correct in your assumption, is it possible that they both were shown vastly different things?? If they both learned from the same person, why are the concepts, theroies, and most obviously to you, TERMS totally different? Do you have a guess at that as well?

Also, are you saying that one or both the men are lying about where they learned there WC from? Because like it or not, that is what your statement says.. And that's a conversation I'd rather not have with you:(

And I'm inviting you, Savi, or whoever else, to show me in plain English what you think those differences are.

And then let's see whether they are major or minor differences.

When you get a chance, please read my post here: http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16141#post16141
Besides history, it describes some very big technical differences between HFY and TWC IMO, just in the opening moves of the SNT forms, just for starters. If they are truely the same system, from the same teacher, why the big differences just in the opening of the SNT?

[Phil Redmond]

Here's a very brief explanation of the Central line:
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/theory.asp
Generally we cover the Center Line and strike along the Central line facing the point of contact with the Center Line. I'll add a video showing that on my website.

[CFT]

The best way might be to post the section on "Popular Wing Chun" here. I do not want to tempt potential copyright Nazis or would do it myself.I think you're OK to post it Andrew. There is "Fair Use" provision in the USA Copyright Act of 1976.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976#Fair_use

Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier). The Act codified this common law doctrine with little modification. Under section 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not copyright infringement, even if such use technically violates section 106. While fair use explicitly applies to use of copyrighted work for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research purposes, the defense is not limited to these areas. The Act gives four factors to be considered to determine whether a particular use is a fair use:



the purpose and character of the use (commercial or educational, transformative or reproductive)
the nature of the copyrighted work (fictional or factual, the degree of creativity)
the amount and substantiality of the portion of the original work used, and
the effect of the use upon the market (or potential market) for the original work.


The Act was later amended to extend the fair use defense to unpublished works.

I made a mental note to look at my copy of MKF last night but forgot. I think that given the time difference you could be the first to do this.

[Wayfaring]

THE CENTRAL LINE
In TWC it all starts with the Central Line principle, which defines the area a practitioner, without pivoting his hips, can cross his wrists evenly at the lower, middle, and upper gates when in a neutral stance. The very first movement you make with both arms after opening up your stance in any of the three forms - and immediately before throwing the vertical punch with your left hand - is the move that defines the central line.

OK, Victor, I'm not sure I'm all on board with what you're trying to prove, and I personally don't believe that HFY and TWC are "virtually the same system". I do believe that there are more similarities than with other WCK families from my limited experience and observations.

However, I think I'm starting to understand your TWC Central Line principle a little better, and I thank you and Phil for your efforts in education and investigation.

In HFY it doesn't start with the Central Line principle, it starts with the HFY Formula. Are these the same? Some of the width definitions you describe here sound close. However, the HFY formula has many other key elements involved. These provide precise reference points for "inside the box" WCK in HFY. The precision level that you describe for even reach in Central Line is equally precise for each of the other areas in the HFY Formula.

I don't think they are the same. For example, in Phil's link there is a picture of a guy with 3 different poses or positions. Two are marked "incorrect", and one is marked "correct". None of the 3 represent an accurate depiction of the HFY Formula applied. None are even close.

So I would say although the Central Line and HFY Formula may have some similarities, there are also some very key differences. And if they are different at the very elemental base, they are certainly different.

This doesn't necessarily mean that your theory of some kind of connection in the past is wrong. I don't know about all that. But certainly a complete transmission of the same WCK system along two separate paths is not the case as I can observe from differences.

[Wayfaring]

I think you're OK to post it Andrew. There is "Fair Use" provision in the USA Copyright Act of 1976.

I think the Fair Use provision allows for quoting sections verbatim from copyrighted material, but prohibits this beyond a certain quantity. So quoting paragraphs or sections of books is certainly legal but reproducing whole pages, chapters, etc. is not.

I certainly think copying a paragraph or two from a book verbatim for discussion purposes is very well within the legal boundaries of this act.

[CFT]

I think the Fair Use provision allows for quoting sections verbatim from copyrighted material, but prohibits this beyond a certain quantity. So quoting paragraphs or sections of books is certainly legal but reproducing whole pages, chapters, etc. is not.Yes, rule of thumb we used at university was photocopying up to 10% of a book or journal for research use. Probably a whole different matter (i.e. not allowed) if photocopying for a class handout.

I don't think Andrew is going to type or even scan the whole book. IIRC it was just a few paragraphs.

[osprey3883]

Alan posted-
You are a bad man Nick! LOL

re-
Originally Posted by Nick Forrer
Actually Alan if you want a book on wing chun its hard to beat fighting by Bob Breen. The wing chun on display in that im sure would meet with your approval.

Thats awesome the Sifu and his student from the WC line that is made up are excited about the WC in a book thats not about WC.
Real f'ing genius coming out of that (Robert Chu) WC family.

Matt

[osprey3883]

What this will prove - by the end of this thread...

is that the two systems are essentially one-and-the-same.

Just stay tuned......

Why?

(Because I believe the two men learned from the same source).

And it's about time that fact was revealed.

Victor,
Are you saying GM Cheung studied with Dr Wang Ming as well? :rolleyes:

OK back to what I believe to be the productive side of this thread-
Re the Bong Laap drill in the clip that was posted, we have already had a good discussion about what concepts are being expressed. As I mentioned earlier in the thread this IMO doesn't present what HFY terms as Kiu Sau because the contact (bridge) keeps being broken and re-established, but I think Phil mentioned that this was a very basic Bong Laap drill. Do you or Phil have any other Bong Laap drills that you would be willing to share that would better express not only an engagement but also maintaining the bridge from a Bong Laap timeframe in TWC?

Matt

[Ultimatewingchun]

When you get a chance (Victor), please read my post here: http://www.hfy108.com/forums/showthr...6141#post16141
Besides history, it describes some very big technical differences between HFY and TWC IMO, just in the opening moves of the SNT forms, just for starters. If they are truely the same system, from the same teacher, why the big differences just in the opening of the SNT?"


AND HERE'S WHAT I FOUND IN YOUR LINK THAT YOU WROTE:

"...in the first moves of the opening of SNT, the hands are crossed low to high with contact at either the wrists or forearm with the arms making more-or-less and ‘X’ shape. This signature is common through most WC seen, from YM, to YKS to TWC even. And from what I have read, seen and gathered, there are various reasons for this. A good explanation was just given most recently by Victor as he describes in Central Line concept on KFO both here http://ezine.kungfu