Honest HFY Question-

[JPinAZ]

Victor,

Good point about the "spin".

Funny story -- and true.... (blah blah blah blah)..... At the end of the seminar he is asked what he thinks about HFY and he tells them, "it seems to be TWC but with more theory." (blah blah blah)"

This guy then begins training with one of my guys a bit later. I met him last year and he tells me this story. And I find it interesting since at the Ohio Friendship Seminar after Garrett's demo of HFY he came up to me and Marty (we were standing together) and asked what we thought of HFY, and I said "It looks like TWC but with more theory."

My point is the testimonials are from people that support the POV that the HFY organization wants to express.

What a funny 'story'. Guess 3rd hand information is the best you can do? And you say it's 'true' - Just like I would expect from you and your group, more rumors and gossip...

Regardless, you only prove my point I have been trying to give to victor all along:
"it seems to be TWC but with more theory." & again "It looks like TWC but with more theory." - exactly my point. With only surface level shapes & movements, that is what it's going to 'look' like to those that don't have the experience to know any different.
But what's most interesting is the theory comments, on both parts (even coming from someone like you with obvious low understanding of WC). That is exactly where the differences lie IMO (the concepts, theroies, principles, etc). And these are most likely big differences when you get into the meat of things. And it's obvious from both quotes, that only after just looking at surface level, while it 'looks' like TWC, it's also clear in both quotes that from the theories there's already a difference.... And that's just at the surface level at first glance.

[anerlich]

Words of someone with Experience.

Experience? He's done TKD, and some HFY, no grappling disciplines.

You can't take an inexperienced grappler seriously as an authority on how to handle grapplers.

hope they catch on

Oh, I think we caught on all right.

a lot to chew on in a day.

There wasn't actually much to chew on at all, and no way am I going to swallow.

We've had cops, commandos and SAS troopers training with us over the years who rate our system fairly highly. Plenty of cops and armed forces personnel involved in BJJ as well. Lots of glowing testimonials.

[t_niehoff]

What a funny 'story'. Guess 3rd hand information is the best you can do? And you say it's 'true' - Just like I would expect from you and your group, more rumors and gossip...


3rd hand? I got it from the guy it happened to (and I was the other guy it happened to!).

The point remains: people who use testimonials to market themselves pick the testimonials. So we may only be hearing from a small numberof people who have swallowed the marketing and not from the many others who don't.


Regardless, you only prove my point I have been trying to give to victor all along:
"it seems to be TWC but with more theory." & again "It looks like TWC but with more theory." - exactly my point. With only surface level shapes & movements, that is what it's going to 'look' like to those that don't have the experience to know any different.


You do understand that what I mean by "theory" is "BS", right? (Theory = BS). You don't want more theory, you want less. As little as possible.


But what's most interesting is the theory comments, on both parts (even coming from someone like you with obvious low understanding of WC). That is exactly where the differences lie IMO (the concepts, theroies, principles, etc). And these are most likely big differences when you get into the meat of things. And it's obvious from both quotes, that only after just looking at surface level, while it 'looks' like TWC, it's also clear in both quotes that from the theories there's already a difference.... And that's just at the surface level at first glance.

All the theory talk is essentally nonsense. The "meat" you talk about is nonsense. It all goes out the window when the fight is on. You are arguing over how your bullsh1t, how they way you believe it should work, is "different" than someone else's view of how it should work. Imagine a boxer or wrestler saying that their way of boxing or wrestling was different than others because they have "different" principles, theories, or concepts than other boxers or wrestlers. They'd rightly be considered nutters.

[reneritchie]

The Qing were Manchurian (the Yuan were Mongol). Most historians, Chinese and Western, will point out that stories of the Manchu burning Shaolin were adaptions of older Tang dynasty stories, used first for recruitment purposes during the High Qing, and later by Sun Yat-Sen to help garner the support of ex-patriot Tongs (by telling them they had "noble" origins and needed to contribute to the Nationalist government in keeping with those origins. Official Nationalist historians were ordered to document these Tang-derived stories as official histories, but they began to fall apart as they were self-contradicting (i.e., the Shaolin initially support the Qing and help them defeat the Tibetans, only to be betrayed and attacked to stop them from growing too powerful -- this does not show the Shaolin as noble patriots (since they supported the Qing initially), but as self-motivated by betrayal).

Any of the (substantial) works of Qin, Murray, Ownesby, etc. cover this stuff in great detail. and are highly recommended to anyone interested.

This stuff (originally published here on Kung Fu Online Magazine) might help with context:

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-secret-societies/

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-red-junk-opera/

[Hendrik]

The Qing were Manchurian (the Yuan were Mongol). Most historians, Chinese and Western, will point out that stories of the Manchu burning Shaolin were adaptions of older Tang dynasty stories, used first for recruitment purposes during the High Qing, and later by Sun Yat-Sen to help garner the support of ex-patriot Tongs (by telling them they had "noble" origins and needed to contribute to the Nationalist government in keeping with those origins. Official Nationalist historians were ordered to document these Tang-derived stories as official histories, but they began to fall apart as they were self-contradicting (i.e., the Shaolin initially support the Qing and help them defeat the Tibetans, only to be betrayed and attacked to stop them from growing too powerful -- this does not show the Shaolin as noble patriots (since they supported the Qing initially), but as self-motivated by betrayal).

Any of the (substantial) works of Qin, Murray, Ownesby, etc. cover this stuff in great detail. and are highly recommended to anyone interested.

This stuff (originally published here on Kung Fu Online Magazine) might help with context:

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-secret-societies/

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-red-junk-opera/



Rene,

You see, people only see what they willing to see. and I have met those within and outside my lineage family.

Some dont even have a clue on either it is Hung Gar or CLF or White Crane or Wing Chun, but they will take thier sifu's word to against what ever they sifu feed them. They think they are performing a patriots act but not they know is they are doing something destructive to the truth.

Luckily heaven always has its way of preserve facts.


For me, I just sing let go Let God. and no longer like to change anyone's believe. Let Go and Let Them do whatever they want. That way, they are free I am free.

Peace

[JPinAZ]

The Qing were Manchurian (the Yuan were Mongol). Most historians, Chinese and Western, will point out that stories of the Manchu burning Shaolin were adaptions of older Tang dynasty stories, used first for recruitment purposes during the High Qing, and later by Sun Yat-Sen to help garner the support of ex-patriot Tongs (by telling them they had "noble" origins and needed to contribute to the Nationalist government in keeping with those origins. Official Nationalist historians were ordered to document these Tang-derived stories as official histories, but they began to fall apart as they were self-contradicting (i.e., the Shaolin initially support the Qing and help them defeat the Tibetans, only to be betrayed and attacked to stop them from growing too powerful -- this does not show the Shaolin as noble patriots (since they supported the Qing initially), but as self-motivated by betrayal).

Any of the (substantial) works of Qin, Murray, Ownesby, etc. cover this stuff in great detail. and are highly recommended to anyone interested.

This stuff (originally published here on Kung Fu Online Magazine) might help with context:

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-secret-societies/

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-red-junk-opera/

Rene,

What's your point with all of this? I mean what is your exact relevance to the discussion going on here? While this is all interesting historical information regarding the red boat opera troops that you have collected into an article, what is your point in posting it in relation to the discussion if you don't mind elaborating?

[JPinAZ]

Rene,

You see, people only see what they willing to see. and I have met those within and outside my lineage family.

Some dont even have a clue on either it is Hung Gar or CLF or White Crane or Wing Chun, but they will take thier sifu's word to against what ever they sifu feed them. They think they are performing a patriots act but not they know is they are doing something destructive to the truth.

Luckily heaven always has its way of preserve facts.

For me, I just sing let go Let God. and no longer like to change anyone's believe. Let Go and Let Them do whatever they want. That way, they are free I am free.

Peace

Hendrik, does this somehow relate to the current discussion of this thread? If so, care to elaborate what exactly you are referring too, or are you just making generalized statements out of the blue for sake of reading your own writing?
Or did you just get compelled to 'sing' to us all online for no reason? :rolleyes:

[CFT]

Rene,

What's your point with all of this? I mean what is your exact relevance to the discussion going on here? While this is all interesting historical information regarding the red boat opera troops that you have collected into an article, what is your point in posting it in relation to the discussion if you don't mind elaborating?It looks like a response to the post by jackattack who was trying to support the HFY position with some dodgy history. Again you are quick to make judgements against your perceived enemies. Ditto with Hendrik who was just responding to Rene's post.

[reneritchie]

CFT FTW!

(next time I'll remember to quote for context...)

[CFT]

CFT FTW!

(next time I'll remember to quote for context...)I guess they are just taking their combat Chan cultivation to the next stage and attack anything that moves/posts.

Fortunately I keep posting off topic so I've escaped their radar.

[reneritchie]

Naw, decade of arguing, sniping, and inuendo'ing makes everyone jumpy. (Families do get on each other's nerves at times.) It'll probably be a while before everyone can just relax and post back and forth, sharing, learning, and blundering without worry.

Likewise, I just try to focus on those bits I find interesting and cross-lineage.

[JPinAZ]

I'm not attacking anything. And I'm not making judgments (except maybe to guess at what hendrick was attampting to say in his ramblings).
Funny though how CFT himself jumps in to defend Rene & Hendrick when he feels they are 'under attack', even when my questions were not directed toward him, but rene & hendrick instead.

Again, my QUESTIONS still stand, since I am having a hard time seeing the direct points being made (or if there are any). And, I thought I was quite clear in that regard. If there is a point trying to be made, then I am missing it. Really, just simple questions.

[CFT]

What's your point with all of this? I mean what is your exact relevance to the discussion going on here? While this is all interesting historical information regarding the red boat opera troops that you have collected into an article, what is your point in posting it in relation to the discussion if you don't mind elaborating?

I'm not attacking anything. And I'm not making judgments (except maybe to guess at what hendrick was attampting to say in his ramblings).
Funny though how CFT himself jumps in to defend Rene & Hendrick when he feels they are 'under attack', even when my questions were not directed toward him, but rene & hendrick instead.Right ... :rolleyes:

I'm sure your 1st two questions were polite and respectful? Though the 2nd half of the paragraph is neutral and you even end on a polite note. I didn't see you saying the same about jackattack's post even though the history is garbled? I guess when one poster is supporting HFY then you can over look the inaccuracies.

[reneritchie]

CFT,

JP might just have missed jackattack's post (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=841840&postcount=496) in all the hubbub.

JP,

In case it's still not clear, I was responding to jackattack, so perhaps he/she could more properly answer your question(s) as to why the subject was brought up.

(BTW - This is a little too meta for me. Discussions about discussions tend to take over and distract, wasting time and bandwidth, so I'll be sticking with the WCK-related stuff).

[Sihing73]

Wow,

After 26 pages there is still little of substance to this thread :eek:

Seems like all we have gathered is that TWC and HFY are somewhat similar but HFY appears to be TWC with deeper concepts. Other than that we simply seem to have the same evasive sniping as always.

Someone please rescue this thread and add some meaningful meat. Her's a thought, maybe if we actually discussed the concepts rather than evade something might come of this yet.

Oh, if it is simply to refer everyone interested in learning more about HFY to read a certain book or visit a class\seminar that could be done with a single post. Although it confuses me as to why post here in the first place if no answers will be forthcoming :confused:

[CFT]

JP might just have missed jackattack's post (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showpost.php?p=841840&postcount=496) in all the hubbub.Yes, fair enough. I shouldn't create more babble.

[sihing]

Wow,

After 26 pages there is still little of substance to this thread :eek:

Seems like all we have gathered is that TWC and HFY are somewhat similar but HFY appears to be TWC with deeper concepts. Other than that we simply seem to have the same evasive sniping as always.

Someone please rescue this thread and add some meaningful meat. Her's a thought, maybe if we actually discussed the concepts rather than evade something might come of this yet.

Oh, if it is simply to refer everyone interested in learning more about HFY to read a certain book or visit a class\seminar that could be done with a single post. Although it confuses me as to why post here in the first place if no answers will be forthcoming :confused:

Dave,

What you said above is what I have gotten out of it, HFY is simply a university level version of what is taught today in TWC, taken to a higher level of comprehension and complexity. The TWC as it is taught today is highschool level IMO, it lacks detail as compared to HFY. Who is responsible for that, well the leader of the TWC system, who by the way is teaching things in TWC today (to a select few), that he has never taught before. So as they say, the devil is in the details, those differences in concept and principle btwn TWC and HFY may be less and less as time goes on. I definetly think there is a deeper connection btwn the two systems, that someone is not telling us about. Yes heirsay is heirsay, but it had to start somewhere. The thing is though (and I was starting to realize this when I had to reread MKF 3 or 4 times to understand what it was saying) HFY sounds dam complicated and anti WC if you ask me. This concept for that range and moment, that principle for this situation, 5 lines, 6 gates, or 4 gates??, heaven/human/earth mixed in with Time/Space/Energy, sounds more like math than fighting, jeez, just hit the guy already:cool:

By the way, I just read an HFY article written by Benny Meng and Darryl Holt, from this websites magazine, Kung Fu/Tai Chi Sept/Oct. 2005 issue, under the article titled "One system to Counter all Styles", at the end of it the authors state "HFY remains untainted from its absolutely true approach to hand to hand combat. HFY is an example of a system to date that has what it takes to counter ALL martial arts styles provided the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment", IMO that is a pretty bold statement of superiority as compared to not just the WC community but the the Martial Arts community as a whole. HFY people here can post all they want about how they are not saying they are superior this or that, but the underlying attitude in their posts says otherwise. That facts are, it comes down to the individual, and the more complex you make something the harder it is for the individual to use it, that is why WC is supposed to be Simple, Direct and Efficient, so that everyone has a equal opportunity to use it (that does not mean everyone will use it the same or as effectively, just that we all can improve our combat effectiveness by learning what it has to teach us). Learning something is better than learning nothing, especially if your one of those people that has very low level combat effectiveness initially. Not all of us are naturals like Liddel, Couture, BJ Penn, etc.. so those that use them as a comparison example are ignorant IMO. You only compare against yourself and your own abilities, not someone elses.

James

[Sihing73]

Dave,
HFY is an example of a system to date that has what it takes to counter ALL martial arts styles provided the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment", IMO that is a pretty bold statement of superiority as compared to not just the WC community but the the Martial Arts community as a whole. HFY people here can post all they want about how they are not saying they are superior this or that, but the underlying attitude in their posts says otherwise. That facts are, it comes down to the individual, and the more complex you make something the harder it is for the individual to use it, that is why WC is supposed to be Simple, Direct and Efficient, so that everyone has a equal opportunity to use it (that does not mean everyone will use it the same or as effectively, just that we all can improve our combat effectiveness by learning what it has to teach us). Learning something is better than learning nothing, especially if your one of those people that has very low level combat effectiveness initially. Not all of us are naturals like Liddel, Couture, BJ Penn, etc.. so those that use them as a comparison example are ignorant IMO. You only compare against yourself and your own abilities, not someone elses. James

Hello James,

I do not wish to troll but I wanted to respond to the idea that HFY, or any other art contains what is needed to counter ALL other martial arts or methods of combat; I mean no disrespect to anyone but honestly in my opinion, if this were the case then the members of the HFY, or other camps, would be mopping the floor with everyone else. My view has always been that WC and its effectiveness is determined by the individual and the effort they put into training. As proof I would like to point out that every lineage\family\version have those who can make their art work most effectively. Now, if there were one "Superior method or approach then that method would be able to establish its superiority by proving itself whether in combat or competition by defeating all comers. Then if this art were embraced by many and the majority of the students of this method were to be able to prove themselves superior to everyone else, then maybe that one particular version could claim superiority.

To date I do not believe any version or lineage has proven itself to be far superior to others and those who do should, IMHO, be able to deal with all comers rather easily and prove it. Until then, I view claims of superiority or having the answer to ALL arts as nice marketting strategy but little else.

Again no offense to anyone I am sure that HFY\TWC and everyone else are all viable and worthwhile, I just don't buy the one true method mentatiliy.

[sihing]

When it comes to strictly a fighters perspective, yes the individual is the primary determining factor, and the fact is some guys are just better fighters, it is something they have within them, and nothing you do can change that (that's why using a bat is sometimes smarter than your fist..)

For me I've always believed that not all WC is the same or equal, so in some instances the method does play a role, or the way a method is taught plays a role, but it is still up to the individual because they determine how hard they are going to train, and how well they will understand what is being taught and how the system works. So it is not so easy to say one is more influencial than the other, too many factors at play. If you have a lousy instructor, you will have lousy understanding and ability to use the stuff being taught, the opposite is true if your instructor is good. Whether or not you can use it in a combat situation is up to you, not the instructor or the art practiced, as WC only provides you with a method to use your natural tools (hands, arms, elbows, head, shoulders, hips, knees, shins, feet, etc..), you use it not it using you. For example, the thread titled "Wing Chun sparring clip", IMO that is not the proper title for that thread, because Wing Chun is a method, idea, concept, principle, not a thing or human being. A better title should have been "Aaron B Sparring Clip", because that is what we saw. By the way, props to Aaron for going out there and experiencing something on the real, good stuff bro. And anyone critquing it and trying to play Monday morning quarterback is foolish, stand in his shoes first before you preach to the everyone else what someone should of done, lol.

James

[taltos]

My view has always been that WC and its effectiveness is determined by the individual and the effort they put into training.

I 100% agree with this, and I think it applies to ALL athletic endeavors. Results simply do not exist without effort. If there were an exception, then everyone would have Olympic skill with no effort.

I also think it is important to again note that the VTM Organization is not the HFY Organization. Yes, there is overlap. The HFY organization is interested in training HFY (as most other arts are interested in their respective arts). The VTM has published articles, etc. (some better worded than others admittedly).

WC got past Cheung/Boztepe, is got passed TWC/YMWC, it got past many other silliness I am forgetting here. It is my greatest wish that the moratorium of articles, etc. and "cooler heads" will create some breather room and let us get passed this.

Everyone is a keyboard sifu, which is why I (and so many others) prefer hands-on experience and I (and some others) prefer civility online.

Happy New Year.

-Levi

[Wayfaring]

By the way, I just read an HFY article written by Benny Meng and Darryl Holt, from this websites magazine, Kung Fu/Tai Chi Sept/Oct. 2005 issue, under the article titled "One system to Counter all Styles", at the end of it the authors state "HFY remains untainted from its absolutely true approach to hand to hand combat. HFY is an example of a system to date that has what it takes to counter ALL martial arts styles provided the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment", IMO that is a pretty bold statement of superiority as compared to not just the WC community but the the Martial Arts community as a whole. HFY people here can post all they want about how they are not saying they are superior this or that, but the underlying attitude in their posts says otherwise.

No offence guys, but couldn't you say that about any martial art if it's applied by a good enough practitioner? Chuck Liddel has the one system (Hawaiian Kempo) to counter all styles, except maybe lap-dance fu.

Everybody's excited about the arts they practice, and can tend to make big claims about them. (Don't make me dredge up some of your past posts here, James ;)) But what does that really say?

If the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment is the rub. That's true of HFY or any other WCK or martial art. If you're good enough, you can smoke anyone coming at you. Being good enough is the hard part.

-Wayfaring
"dedicated to whipping up my 'tude to proper lofty standards"

[osprey3883]

Hello,

The thing is though (and I was starting to realize this when I had to reread MKF 3 or 4 times to understand what it was saying) HFY sounds dam complicated and anti WC if you ask me. This concept for that range and moment, that principle for this situation, 5 lines, 6 gates, or 4 gates??, heaven/human/earth mixed in with Time/Space/Energy, sounds more like math than fighting, jeez, just hit the guy already:cool:

IMO the good news is that our governing concepts give us a reference to check ourselves against. The bad news is it takes time and work to make this part of your natural reaction, but this is the way of learning any new skill.


By the way, I just read an HFY article written by Benny Meng and Darryl Holt, from this websites magazine, Kung Fu/Tai Chi Sept/Oct. 2005 issue, under the article titled "One system to Counter all Styles", at the end of it the authors state "HFY remains untainted from its absolutely true approach to hand to hand combat. HFY is an example of a system to date that has what it takes to counter ALL martial arts styles provided the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment", IMO that is a pretty bold statement of superiority as compared to not just the WC community but the the Martial Arts community as a whole.


I will say that as a HFY member the only thing I could think when I read that article was "wow".
IMO Levi was spot on in his assessment of the need to understand the difference between what comes from the VTM and what comes from the HFY organization. As a HFY member I have been taught to have respect in general for all other MA families. Within the family we have a saying- Never say you are number one, but never say you are number 2 either. (or something along those lines) IMO this translates to give everyone respect but let no one push you around.

Good post btw,
Matt

[Sihing73]

Hi Levi,

WC has indeed weathered some rather ludicrus events.

I think that the frustration found here is that it sometimes seems as though answers to questions asked are not always freely given. While it is certainly true that an in person meeting is better and would clear up questions more fully, it is not always possible to meet in person.

FWIW, things for all parties would probably go smoother if we discussed what we could and left other things alone. While it is fine to direct someone to a book or a class or seminar, one should still, IMO, answer the questions posed to the best of ones ability. Not saying that some here have not done so, just expressing what may account for some of the frustration and perceived uncivil behavior on all sides.

WC is a family and as such will always have the black sheep and strange uncles and aunts. Lord knows I am like the unwanted red headed stepchild and rarely even get invited to the family reunions :(

[osprey3883]

Chuck Liddel has the one system (Hawaiian Kempo) to counter all styles, except maybe lap-dance fu.


IMO there is no need to counter lap-dance fu. Just go with the (cash) flow.

Matt

[osprey3883]

Rene,
The Qing were Manchurian (the Yuan were Mongol). Most historians, Chinese and Western, will point out that stories of the Manchu burning Shaolin were adaptions of older Tang dynasty stories, used first for recruitment purposes during the High Qing, and later by Sun Yat-Sen to help garner the support of ex-patriot Tongs (by telling them they had "noble" origins and needed to contribute to the Nationalist government in keeping with those origins. Official Nationalist historians were ordered to document these Tang-derived stories as official histories, but they began to fall apart as they were self-contradicting (i.e., the Shaolin initially support the Qing and help them defeat the Tibetans, only to be betrayed and attacked to stop them from growing too powerful -- this does not show the Shaolin as noble patriots (since they supported the Qing initially), but as self-motivated by betrayal).

Any of the (substantial) works of Qin, Murray, Ownesby, etc. cover this stuff in great detail. and are highly recommended to anyone interested.

This stuff (originally published here on Kung Fu Online Magazine) might help with context:

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-secret-societies/

http://www.w1ng.com/wing-chun-kuen-and-the-red-junk-opera/

It seems like there is still some debate about the Southern temple, is what you mention above the "final statement" from the PRC about the temple?

I was reading Gene's article-
http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=158

as well as

http://www.hungkuen.net/history-riddleofshaolin.htm (which twists and turns and left me with more questions than answers)

Matt

[JPinAZ]

Hi Levi,

WC has indeed weathered some rather ludicrus events.

I think that the frustration found here is that it sometimes seems as though answers to questions asked are not always freely given. While it is certainly true that an in person meeting is better and would clear up questions more fully, it is not always possible to meet in person.

FWIW, things for all parties would probably go smoother if we discussed what we could and left other things alone. While it is fine to direct someone to a book or a class or seminar, one should still, IMO, answer the questions posed to the best of ones ability. Not saying that some here have not done so, just expressing what may account for some of the frustration and perceived uncivil behavior on all sides.

WC is a family and as such will always have the black sheep and strange uncles and aunts. Lord knows I am like the unwanted red headed stepchild and rarely even get invited to the family reunions :(

I am not sure I understand your point here. If one points to a book to save writing reams of identicle information here, I think that is the easiest way to share something that is already well covered and documented elsewhere. Unless you suggest we write pages and pages of the same material so a question is fully answered here as well? :rolleyes:

Also, I am not sure I agree that all questions have to be answered 'in full' here, nor do I think this is even possible without face-to-face interaction. If some information is withheld, maybe that is because the person sharing the information just doesn't feel the recipient is ready for the answer. Or, maybe the information is being given in layers so it is easier to absorb (just like in the classroom).
OR, maybe it is just as simple as you can't have everything for free, sometimes if you want to ride the bus you have to sooner or later buy a ticket. Maybe this is what you expect when making statements like "answers to questions asked are not always freely given" ;)

And if it's not possible to meet in person, then maybe that is just the way it is and one shouldn't get 'frustrated' if they are not getting all the information they are requesting (not singling out any one particular individual with this statement, this is just a general statement). And just because a question is asked, doesn't mean it has to be answered. Or, if it is, it doesn't mean it has to be answered in the fashion expected. But I feel a lot has been shared here on this thread, even is some don't feel it's enough (?)

[Sihing73]

Hello JPinAZ,

Fair enough but then why bother to post here at all? If the receipient is not ready for the answer then it is kind of pointless to come to a public forum like this, which is for the discussion and promotion of the art of WC, and then not pass on that knowledge or answer. Kind of reminds me of an old boss I had, he would hold meetings and constantly tell us he could tell us the answers about what was happening in the company, but was not going to do so at that time. I left those long meetings knowing no more, and perhaps less, than I did going in. To me a complete waste of time and effort. I mean why hold the meetings in the first place :confused:

As to refering to a book, why should anyone have to go out and purchase something in order to get a question answered. Sure, I can see if one really wants to delve deeper into something then a book, or other reference materials are invaluable. But, it does not seem fair for someone to come onto a public forum which is where people join to discuss things, and then say we have the answer to that but you have to go buy our book in order to understand. Seems like one of those get rich quick infomercials on late night T.V. Also, what happens if the answers are not found, is a refund given?

Certainly no one has a monopoly on the truth. My point is pretty simple really:

If one is not really interested in sharing or discussing then why both posting here at all? There are pleny of people here with much valued knowledge to share and they are, for the most part, willing to do so without cost. Why should any one group which posts here require anyone to "buy the ticket" while being able to gain insight from others, equally viable for free?

[anerlich]

IMO Levi was spot on in his assessment of the need to understand the difference between what comes from the VTM and what comes from the HFY organization. As a HFY member I have been taught to have respect in general for all other MA families. Within the family we have a saying- Never say you are number one, but never say you are number 2 either. (or something along those lines) IMO this translates to give everyone respect but let no one push you around.

The problem here is that Benny Meng, and maybe others, are inextricably linked to both organisations.

You claim we "need to understand the difference", but actually the onus is on the HFY and VTM to ensure the differences, assuming they do exist, are clear to their audience(s), not the other way round., and that their members who have a foot in both camps declare which hat they are wearing at a particular time.

(forgive the mixed metaphors - maybe that should be "shoe" not "hat" :p)

In law or business, if you have a potential conflict of interest, you are expected to declare it, not make it other people's problem to find it out.

When the line is this blurred, expecting the audience to understand exactly which organisation (though I note the article is written by two persons, not an organisation) is doing the talking is asking rather too much.

I haven't read the article, and am unlikely to, but the statements made about HFY's completeness and superiority obviously belong in an advertisement, not an allegedly learned article. As long as that intent is made clear, there's no problem.

[osprey3883]

By the way, I just read an HFY article written by Benny Meng and Darryl Holt, from this websites magazine, Kung Fu/Tai Chi Sept/Oct. 2005 issue, under the article titled "One system to Counter all Styles", at the end of it the authors state "HFY remains untainted from its absolutely true approach to hand to hand combat. HFY is an example of a system to date that has what it takes to counter ALL martial arts styles provided the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment", IMO that is a pretty bold statement of superiority as compared to not just the WC community but the the Martial Arts community as a whole.

Hello,
I wanted to expand on this a bit more. We have copies for sale of Kung Fu/Tai Chi at the kwoon on a regular basis. Shortly after this article came out GM Gee was in town for some training. The group went to dinner and one of the members had a question for GM Gee about some art in the magazine and GM Gee happened to find and read the article. At this time I was relatively new to the inner workings of the family and I had assumed that anything the VTM published relating to HFY had been passed through HFY HQ prior to publication. Boy was I wrong on that one. GM Gee became visibly upset by the article, and as is often the case GM Gee took it as an opportunity to educate us. GM Gee was so concerned that we understand his philosophy of "give respect to all but take no crap from anyone" that when the food came it sat untouched while GM Gee pressed the point.
IMO though many of the VTM staff are also HFY members GM Gee always gives them the room to communicate things from the VTM point of view, even when it is different than the HFY point of view.

Matt

[osprey3883]

The problem here is that Benny Meng, and maybe others, are inextricably linked to both organisations.

You claim we "need to understand the difference", but actually the onus is on the HFY and VTM to ensure the differences, assuming they do exist, are clear to their audience(s), not the other way round., and that their members who have a foot in both camps declare which hat they are wearing at a particular time.

(forgive the mixed metaphors - maybe that should be "shoe" not "hat" :p)

In law or business, if you have a potential conflict of interest, you are expected to declare it, not make it other people's problem to find it out.

When the line is this blurred, expecting the audience to understand exactly which organisation (though I note the article is written by two persons, not an organisation) is doing the talking is asking rather too much.

I haven't read the article, and am unlikely to, but the statements made about HFY's completeness and superiority obviously belong in an advertisement, not an allegedly learned article. As long as that intent is made clear, there's no problem.

I 100% agree with you. Definitely a slippery slope that can lead to many misunderstandings.

Here is a good example- Someone earlier in the thread brought up that HFY took it's Kiu Sau from Chi Sim.

As I understand it GM Gee has never learned any Chi Sim. The only Chi Sim connection to the family is that Master Meng studied from GM Hoffmann in the past. (and that WC is all inter related, but thats a different discussion)

All of the HFY Kiu Sau that I have been exposed to comes from our SNT. In fact you can break out the Kiu Sau concepts in our SNT section by section-
The opening and first section expose the student to the 10 bright points (reference points)
Second section covers the following Kiu Sau platforms-
Fau Kiu/Faat Sau
Deiu Ying
1/2 point
Bong Laap
Kwan Sau
Third section covers our Saam Sing Jong Kiu Sau.

Definitely a huge emphasis on Kiu Sau in the HFY SNT.

BTW this is from my perspective as a HFY member, I am not affiliated with the VTM. :)
Matt

[JPinAZ]

Dave,

Your whole post makes no sense to me. So, you are basically saying, unless I completely share the entire system of HFY in it's totality, why post at all?? If not, then where do YOU draw the line for me? Who are you anyway? I post to share what I feel is appropriate at the time.

IMO there has been PLENTY of information regarding HFY (and TWC) shared on this thread. If you can't see that, then you're blind. You sound like you want EVERYTHING for free, spelled out in black and white. Who are you?? How do you rate? Why should I give you everything, if anything. It's not an all or nothing issue as you try to make it. That's why I said sooner or later one needs to hop on the bus. Or, just STFU and be happy with what is given. If I share, regardless how much or little, it's my choice. I'll share what I want and to what level I want. BFD. Stop your whining, you sound like a spoiled kid asking for the whole candy store.

As far as not being ready for the answer, sometimes 'experience is required', it's just that simple. Or maybe if someone is clearly not understanding the first bits of information shared, is there really any use in going further/deeper? Same as in the classroom. Didn't think this should be that difficult. Are you saying that YOU can explain your whole system of WC here so easily? If not, then why post at all... see how stupid that sounds?

As far as sharing and discussing, besides whinning about how much has or hasn't been shared, why not share something yourself? I haven't seen you add anything worthwhile to the discussion, except comlpaining. How about giving us your ideas of gate theory, or what you know of kiu sau, or heaven human & earth, or historical connections of the arts being discussed, or any other subject that has been covered in the past 20 or so pages.....

[Sihing73]

Hello JPinAZ,

Thank you for reinforcing my suspicions ;)

You, and some others, seem to feel that you are picked on when you post here. I have received PM's complaining about some of the posts which do not agree with your groups, POV. What I attempted to bring to your attention is why this may be so. Yes, there have been some beneficial posts sharing some concepts and exploring some differences, but in the many pages of this thread, you can probably condense all of the "sharing of knowledge" into, at most, 2-3 pages. The remaining pages have ranged from slights to vague references to "mystery".

I personally have nothing against HFY, but I do find it interesting that some members, not all, post and get upset when others challenge or do not agree. Especially when they fail to share openly or answer questions. Again, I am curious as to why post here if unwilling or unable to share? :confused:

To be honest, I am not all that interested in HFY as I am unconvinced that it is the be all end all of WC. As I said before, if that were the case then your members would be able to demonstrate that in person and everyone who met you would come back and tell the rest of us they had found the promised land.

I interjected as a result of several PM's, mostly from your group, and tried to get a point across as to why people may not have the same idea of HFY as some of its members. If I am whinning then so be it.

As to sharing, I admit I have nothing to share as I practice neither HFY nor TWC. Although, I could ramble on for say, 10 pages just to get the point across while really saying nothing :rolleyes:

I am content with my WC and feel it suits me well. I admit to one time being interested in learning more about HFY but to be frank, the attitudes and unwillingness to share openly has turned me off a bit.

Perhaps one day I will meet someone from your line in person and we can have tea and discuss our approaches in a beneficial manner. However, it seems obivious to me that an internet forum is not condusive to doing so, at least not for me.

I wish you all the best and invite you to visit me should you ever get to Atlanta. Perhaps we are not as far apart as it seems and may be able to learn something from one another.

Oh, yes, I am no one of any consequence and probably know far less than you and many others on this forum. However, I am open to learning and certainly would not proclaim my own superiority unless I could show that in ALL situations, and if you ask me a question which I know the answer to, I won't refer you to a book instead of answering.

[sihing]

No offence guys, but couldn't you say that about any martial art if it's applied by a good enough practitioner? Chuck Liddel has the one system (Hawaiian Kempo) to counter all styles, except maybe lap-dance fu.

Everybody's excited about the arts they practice, and can tend to make big claims about them. (Don't make me dredge up some of your past posts here, James ;)) But what does that really say?

If the practitioner can approach true objectivity in it's employment is the rub. That's true of HFY or any other WCK or martial art. If you're good enough, you can smoke anyone coming at you. Being good enough is the hard part.

-Wayfaring
"dedicated to whipping up my 'tude to proper lofty standards"

Hi Way,

You are right in the fact that I too have made statements and claims in the past regarding the lineage I was involved with, hopefully I've learned since then.
The past two years have been a big eye opener for me WC wise. Firstly, I do not believe in the words "best", "most", "deadliest", and so forth. IMO, the WSL method I am training in is very effective and efficient for what it is there for, but if I sit on my a$$ and do nothing, it is no good to me. The people I have met, espeically my bro Ernie (as well as a bunch of others), are excellent teachers, fighters, practitioners and human being's but they are not perfect nor do I worship them. I respect them for who they are and appreciate their skills and willingness to share it with me, and I express that opinion here.

The thing about the article, is that it talks specifically about the absence of individualizing the art (what Liddel has done with Kempo), but rather one should become the art (HFY), and that if one does this they become almost invincible. To me that is funny, as no fighting art or science can do that.

James

[UKBBC]

You know what? For those that are truly interested, how about sponsoring a well respected volunteer to make a trip out west and meet for a real hands-on training weekend with a HFY group?

That way, we can have a true opinion as to whether HFY theories and concepts are truly a level above all other WC lineages and would provide a significant training benefit.

50 people donating $20 each should easily cover the trip! Put a poll up, this could save countless pages of debate.

[anerlich]

50 people donating $20 each should easily cover the trip! Put a poll up, this could save countless pages of debate.

Countless pages of debate are still cheaper than $20.

And either side could claim the "well respected volunteer" was hypnotised while he was there by the naysayers, and hypnotised before/after by the HFYers, should the resulting review not be totally in line with the complainants' desires.

Not serious, but I've seen wackier ideas presented as fact on this thread.

[Phil Redmond]

Countless pages of debate are still cheaper than $20.

And either side could claim the "well respected volunteer" was hypnotised while he was there by the naysayers, and hypnotised before/after by the HFYers, should the resulting review not be totally in line with the complainants' desires.

Not serious, but I've seen wackier ideas presented as fact on this thread.
Hey Andrew, I'm not sure if I'm respected or not but I do know a "little" about TWC so I'd love to personally compare. Maybe it could end this whole thing.
Phil

[anerlich]

Hey Andrew, I'm not sure if I'm respected or not but I do know a "little" about TWC so I'd love to personally compare. Maybe it could end this whole thing.


Phil, your attitude mixing politeness and restraint with a desire to ferret out the truth commands respect.

If there's a "send Phil Redmond to Arizona" fund, I'd certainly kick in USD20 (the exchange rate is working for me now, even).

[anerlich]

IMO though many of the VTM staff are also HFY members GM Gee always gives them the room to communicate things from the VTM point of view, even when it is different than the HFY point of view.

Sorry, to harp, but some of you guys said it was vital to understand the distinction between the VTM and HFY with respect to the aforementioned article.

So, was the article written from the POV of HFY or the VTM? Did GG get upset about the article because it conveyed the VTM POV, the HFY POV, or because it was simply OTT?

And if the VTM is not HFY why should the VTM's members who happen to do some HFY need "room to communicate things from the VTM point of view" from Garrett Gee? When as you say, they are two separate entities and shouldn't be confused, though as you also say, his implicit (if not explicit) permission is required for their VTM activities?

Are you sure BM and GG understand the distinction you brought up as being so important?

Sorry, but you aren't clarifying things, in fact the opposite.

[osprey3883]

Hello,
Maybe this will clear things up a bit. (quick disclaimer, this is all my perspective/understanding.)
The VTM as I understand it is an organization set up to research and document WC. Master Meng and his students set up the VTM at the behest of his Sifu and some of the senior YM student in hopes of better understanding/documenting the various WC lineages. Master Meng and the VTM staff have traveled to many different parts of the world in pursuing and documenting WC. The VTM has published many many articles based on their research into various WC lineages.
I believe Master Meng met GM Gee and the HFY lineage during his research. At this time Master Meng was already a Master level WC practitioner in the MY lineage. As I understand it Master Meng felt a strong connection with what GM Gee and HFY represented and he eventually became a disciple of the system.

HFY is a martial arts system and is only seeking to share HFY with the public. In my experience GM Gee presents HFY, he knows some people will relate to it and others won't.

re-

So, was the article written from the POV of HFY or the VTM? Did GG get upset about the article because it conveyed the VTM POV, the HFY POV, or because it was simply OTT?


Although it was a VTM article it was not clear that this was the case, IMO GM Gee was upset because the article could be percieved as showing a general disrespect to the MA community from HFY, which is not the case.

Matt

[Ultimatewingchun]

This thread - like EVERY OTHER THREAD that has ever dealt with HFY - has become another battle of truth vs. marketing scheme. No matter how hard some of us tried to make it a clean discussion without rhetoric or politics.

BECAUSE EVERYTHING OF IMPORTANCE TO STAND UP FIGHTING THAT HFY HAS IS COVERED BY TWC...

....which is what I was getting at EVERY time I said that the two systems are ESSENTIALLY one-and-the-same.

(Yeah, HFY might be TWC with some more "theory" - but what does that extra theory amount to in the end? My theory: hardly anything).

And then some HFY posters have the audacity to complain to moderators for what they have brought upon themselves: scorn. And ridicule. It was like pulling teeth, JP....just to get you and the others (and I'm still laughing at the way Savi disappeared from the thread once I started to answer his challenge about the HFY/TWC comparison)....like pulling teeth at the dentist to get you to actually talk in plain English. In fact, at many turns during the early and some of the middle pages of the thread it was like pulling teeth to get you to talk details at all - for you constantly tried to stop the conversation with a "you need to read the book or come to a seminar" routine.

And you constantly tried to play the ridicule game with me because I wasn't keeping up with all YOUR..(as in HFY) esoteric terminology. Until I began to make it very clear that I did know what you were talking about waaaay more often than you were comfortable with once the VEILS were removed. That the concepts were not foreign to me.

And so you felt compelled (and perhaps even a bit intrigued) for awhile to respond with some clarity - so that the conversation/discussion/comparison became just that: a conversation. And not just a marketing opportunity.

It's too deliberate, overbearing, and consistent not to be part of the overall plan as to how to "market" this "superior" system that loves to talk in riddles and refer people to books filled with tons of more theories and Chinese aphorisms - and more riddles...all written in such a way that it's impossible to pin down without learning a whole new language, so to speak...ie.- you have to come to a seminar or read the book that you won't really understand anyway unless you do go to the seminar because our GM Gee doesn't want anything on film.

How cute! :rolleyes:

[drleungjohn]

I have stayed off this thread since I got my answer and left-lurking for a post or 2 then leaving since I knew where this was going

That being said-and at the rate of having this post of mine also misread and attacked as a double and or hidden meaning by suspicious minds who breed their own demons and ghosts-

Having met Garrett Gee twice and breaking bread with him,I don't believe the "attitude" is coming from him

I think it's more along the lines of what happened when Grandmaster Cheung first came out and all the HK Ving Tsun guys who saw the differences jumped on the TWC bandwagon to the point of zealots-if you think back to those days-how many were willing to just put up and bang over any implied or non implied slight,and how many were willing to even take a bullet or him if need be-I know I would have back then

Phil Holder-"Mad Dog" even made it public he would-

So I personally just think it's not him,again having met and spoken with him a few times-

ok-let's see how this gets turned around into something that's not-

[taltos]

I can see the frustration on both sides of this unfortunate situation (maybe not agree, but see). Hopefully we can move passed it.

Parlati sifu, I agree with your statement that we (generic "we") cannot make definitive statements about TWC without first hand, direct experience. I agree 100%, and feel that it goes both ways. I really enjoyed the parts of this thread that were sharing (not comparing)... they were very interesting and enjoyable.

Also (and I really hope this does not come across as defensive or argumentative to anyone - NOT what I mean), I understand what you are saying about a "mentality." I would only like to add that there are (don't know exactly) a few hundred people training HFY, but only a dozen or so who post with frequency. Admittedly, they are probably among the most "gung ho" or "passionate" or whatever, and some express themselves and there frustrations better than others, but there is unfortunately no way online to "prove" that there are a significant number of regular, calm, easy-going people offline as well (and some hot heads I'm sure, just like in any large group).

I know there are probably thousands of TWC practicioners (and YM, and YKS, and every other branch), but only a small minority engage in these online discussions. I try to participate when I can, but I get very frustrated and dismayed at being stereotyped... my time is limited as it is, and it makes me (and perhaps others) feel like participation is fruitless if minds are already made up about me just because of the training methods I use to learn to defend myself. I mean, wow, if we judge each other by the worst member of our family, I don't think anyone will come out clean. And FWIW, I don't always agree with my sihingdai. I try to be discreet about resolving those disagreements, but we are all (hopefully) adults, and have our own views of things. I've come down on people in my own school, and I've had the thunder brought down on me when I screw up as well. It's all good.

Also, (again, my intention is to demonstrate my opinion and not to start anything), when I hear these two things:

1. Gee sifu MUST be controlling you guys and setting the tone.

2. If he isn't, Gee sifu SHOULD be controlling you (or Meng sifu, or whomever) to take care of this issue.

...it seems like there is no way to solve the issue. D@mned if you do, d@mned if you don't. That's why I rarely participate... every conversation becomes a double-edged sword. I'd rather train. At least there I can leave better than I arrived.

Gee sifu has never ORDERED anyone to do anything AFAIK. In the years I have been learning HFY, I have never been given (or heard) any "orders". He has certainly expressed his personal preferences (for example he is not fond of videos and such), and some of those have been honored, and some have not. He knows that we do not live in an ancient Chinese family, and he understands that we are all free to express ourselves however we wish (even if it is very badly). He is known for giving his opinion and stepping back to see if we are paying attention and have considered what he has said. He lets us all stand (and fall) on our own merits.

Could he be stricter? Yes. Could he be more wide open? Yes. He just is what he is. I can't count how many times he has said (in one form or another) that he doesn't care if you like him or his students or business or online studd or books or videos or whatever. He only cares if you personaly relate to HFY. If you do, welcome aboard. If you don't, best of luck and well wishes on your journey. I can respect that. After all, this is a free modern world.

I think if one posts here, then questions directed to them are fair game (may or may not be answered, but certainly fair game). Bringing people in who have never (or not in a long time) posted seems fruitless, especially when there are other, more direct ways of getting answers. I try (not always successful) to keep my name dropping limited to those in the conversation. If we all did this, perhaps we could avoid these sadly-all-too-frequent explosions from occurring.

I am in no way denying or off-setting what anyone has said. Opinions are opinions, and really (without facts) are not things that can be contested. I am only offering mine here as well.

Much respect to everyone. Be well and train well, and hopefully this year of the rat will bring about a better way for us to communicate.

Now everyone, please, take a breather, drink some wine, do some snt, whatever. Let's regroup with cooler heads. This thread is dead (or really should be shot and put out of its misery).

Be well and train well.

-Levi

[anerlich]

Although it was a VTM article it was not clear that this was the case, IMO GM Gee was upset because the article could be percieved as showing a general disrespect to the MA community from HFY, which is not the case.


OK, good. That makes sense. It also perhaps betrays from whom the pattern of advertorial statements that could be "percieved as showing a general disrespect to the MA community from HFY" are actually coming from.

While we are all critical of each other's behaviour on here, the fact is that no one posting here is without sin, recent moralising posts to the contrary. Expect to be called out if you post obvious rubbish or pompous, moralistic crap.

I'd prefer that people be themselves, arguments insults or no, rather than as a come across bunch of moralisers and pompous pseudo-Zen airheads. This forum is more like a bar than an academic institution. Nothing wrong with that IMO, if you disagree no one's making you stay.

[Liddel]

Respect is something that can be given freely from the start, but it's something that is only held when the person continues to show they've earned and deserve it. IMO, by the way victor conducted himself here, he has lost that respect.


You guys have lost focus in taking a defencive position.

Hell, ive disagreed with many on this forum over time but i always can reach the 'agree to disagree' stage. Perhaps cause im content with what i have and no matter what others say it aint changing my experiences which control my opinions.

Ive been generally interested about HFY Kiu Sao and how it relates to elements in my VT. But all ive got is generalisations and no straight foward answers.

Im told cause i havent got hands on experience it cant be conveyed...please LOL.

Ive explained in words my VT Kung Fu to friends that do BJJ, TKB, Boxing, Karate, they came away with a basic knowledge/understanding of my approach mindset and techs....physical behaviour believe it or not is universal in martial arts.

I asked what are the differences in facings between Chi Sao and Kiu Sao ?
to address this one aspect at a time..... after i offered my own approach as the ice breaker !

Why is that so hard to answer ?

I did it in one post, Vic offered his POV, approach in a few posts.....

30 odd pages from HFY and were still not there........
Its a shame.

DREW