Yuanfen
>Can you nautch, bhangra, obanga, santhali?<
Are these native Indian dances?
Phil
Phil
Nautch- is a generic umbrella of dances in India.
Santhali- is a tribal round dance of the Santhals- an aboriginal
tribal group in east India.
Obanga- generic umbrella for Muscogee Creek(American Indian)
dances including the “stomp”. The true obanga is sacred.
But
the stomp has influenced a well known late late night inter- tribal social group dance known as the “49 er”…(around a fire. alternating boy and girl) spreading from Oklahoma with the dance leader making up songs and others responding.
An oldie:
""Oh my dearie, how can i ever forget you
That first kiss you gave me, made me love you
Eiyah Eiyah heh heh
Eiyah Eiyah heh heh
After the dance is over dear
I’ll take you home yet
In my one eyed Ford
Eiyah eiyah heh heh
eiyah eiyah heh heh"“”
((before dawn’s early light…BTW)))
Phil-PS
The Bhangra is a very very enegetic(non classical) village group dance with hand drumming from the Punjab in India. You can see it in some Indian doings in the UK, Canada and the US in places with large
Indian (specially Sikh) population.
All you need is …?
LOVE?
To Renee or anyone else that might know
I understand that at one time Garrett Gee shared a school with Chris Chan.He did not teach WC.Anyone ever ask Chan Sifu about Gee Sifu’s WC.It might help end the speculation.
Sifu Gee
Sigaung Gee’s blood family has a wealth of Kung fu history. However He did not teach Wing Chun to the public until later. If you are curious you should contact the VTM for information. Here is the web site you can just drop a E-mail.
I hope this helps those that are wondering.
Chango (saat geng sau)
Hi Hunter,
I believe Gee sifu did teach some WC (then called Hung Suen) prior to the recent publicity. John Murphy, the gentleman kind enough to help us with Complete Wing Chun, is one of them, and he might have had some Chinese students as well (Matt Kwan among them). Who the earliest ones were, and when they began, I’m not certain.
To my (limited in experience) eye, Chris Chan sifu’s sytem looks more like Yip Man system, while Gee sifu’s looks closer to William Cheung’s. Gee sifu was, when I had the good fortune to meet him, very complimentary towards Chan sifu and his skills, which was heartening to see among WCK teachers who often don’t have kind words to say about each other.
Rgds,
RR
Chris Chan and Sifu Gee
My point was that I don’t think Sigung taught WCK publicly at that time when Chris Chan was teaching it. But once again you can get a better view of things by just contacting the VTM direct. 
<snip>To my (limited in experience) eye, Chris Chan sifu’s sytem looks more like Yip Man system, while Gee sifu’s looks closer to William Cheung’s.
I’m not sure what your goal is by this statement. Those of us who train HFY would have to disagree with you on the "looks like William Cheung’s"maybe you should further explain what you mean. Wouldn’t William Cheung’s Kung fu be considered Yip Man’s system? I think it would be interesting to hear your take on that subject. I think statements like this help to fuel such idea’s that started this thread in the first place. you might say the due to the fact that both HFY and TWC do not use a pegion toed stance to start with like other WCK. so you might tend to lump them together. But if that was the case then why are not talking about Gu lao as well. I mean Rene if I look on the front of your book “the complete Wing chun” the argument could be said that what Robert Chu is doing on the cover “looks like William Cheung’s” also. I would think someone that has done so much coverage would be able to explain the differences a little better. But it could be that you only got to the surface of each of these systems and did not understand them beyond the use of the “goat holding stance” If this the case why don’t you just classify them as pegion toed and none pigeon toed WCK (LOL) maybe you should have stopped when you said “To my (limited in experience) eye” I mean if that is the case what is the need in going any further? That is why I direct people to other valuable resources such as the VTM and different publications covering the subject becuase I’m not one to speak for some one else. especially if (how did you say it ?) my experience is limited. beleive me if someone had a question on Yuen Kay San I would not be eager to jump in as a source of information on the subject. Because I have only about a half of a dozen Sifu’s that do this system. I don’t think it would be fair to that system or the person asking the question if I started to compare this system with others saying it is like this or that. I haven’t even seen any other form of thiers other then SNT. How could I comment on the rest of the system? by the way have you seen any other form outside of SNT in HFY? 
Hey Chango,
I think you’re familiar with my view on this. Put Chris Chan, another Yip Man instructor, Garette Gee, and William Cheung on tape, have a casual observer watch them, and the first two will look more similar to each other than they would to either of the latter two, and the latter two would look more similar to each other than they would to the first two. (Heck, do it with your own Friendship Seminar Rochester tape). I was painting Hunter a picture of why I didn’t think there was a connection (teacher/student) between the two, and I think it came out rather clearly.
As to your points on “going straight to the source”, this is sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes a “source” doesn’t care about you and will either not answer, answer shortly, or will disinform. Sometimes a “source” has other interests than the straight out facts and will answer in keeping with those interests (“Shucks, no, not really, I can’t teach you to kill 3 people in 5 minutes through nipple-point shock system and I didn’t really teach the SEALS or CIA, and yes I am too young to have learned directly from Robin Hood” is probably not the answer you’ll get when calling the people with the full page miracle adds in MA magazines). This is why it’s best to have multiple sources (and no self-respecting, professional institute or publication will usually run a story that doesn’t have multiple sources (and hopefully some balance)).
Hope you appreciate, and will eventually reciprocate, the courtesy extended your way. As you well know, I go out of my way to be nice and polite to you and yours on these threads. Please don’t take advantage.
Rgds,
RR
Weather the storm…
–Wouldn’t William Cheung’s Kung FU be considered Yip Man’s syetem? - Chango
IMO, absolutely!!! 100%Yipman+100%Leungbik= TWC
Sigung Cheung has had said it many times in public.
–I mean Rene if I look on the front of your book “the complete Wing chun” the argument could be said that what Robert Chu is doing on the cover “looks like William Cheung’s” also. - Chango
Well said,
Is Robert Chu a certified TWC Sifu under William Cheung?
If not, why did he post as a TWC man on the cover?
And what’s Robert Chu Wing Chun?
–I was painting Hunter a picture of why I didn’t think there was a connection (teacher/student) between the two. - Rene
LOL!!! I was painting Yuanfen a picture of why I didn’t think there was a connection (YMWC/XXWC) between the two. Though it looks similar, the context couldn’t be more different.
Rene
just a few points Rene,
–Put Chris Chan, another Yip Man instructor, Garette Gee, and William Cheung on tape, have a casual observer watch them, and the first two will look more similar to each other than they would to either of the latter two, and the latter two would look more similar to each other than they would to the first two.
But up on qualifying yourself to jump in and answer the question. Did you ask youself if you could offer more insight then the “casual observer” especially since this forum contains both HFY members and Yip Man lineage members. which you are neither. Just so happens I’m a member of both. yet I find a struggle from you on the subject of these systems. You have cataloged these systems that is fine and that was something that was needed in the WCK. But there is a difference between cataloging these two systems and learning these systems. This is my point Rene it’s not personal it is just the facts.
–As to your points on “going straight to the source”, this is sometimes good, sometimes bad. Sometimes a “source” doesn’t care about you and will either not answer, answer shortly, or will disinform. Sometimes a “source” has other interests than the straight out facts and will answer in keeping with those interests
let’s not mix words here Rene. Who do you think it is that is not giving a straight answer or refusing to answer. Siguang Gee, Sifu Chris Chan or Sibak Gaung William Cheung? If you feel that way about one of these gentlemen then you should just come out and say it. So we all will know where you stand. Please don’t dance around what you just said here. you must think this applies to one of these Gentlemen and pillars in the WCK comunity. Maybe I’m just a loud American here but we beleive that a man should be able to say what he means and have the guts to stand up for it. Anything less just causes me to loose respect for that person. So I’m offering you a chance to do so here Rene.
—Hope you appreciate, and will eventually reciprocate, the courtesy extended your way. As you well know, I go out of my way to be nice and polite to you and yours on these threads. Please don’t take advantage.
Rene call me crude I just state the facts as I see them I do not have time to worry about being polite. I feel if the truth hurts then the pain will teach a valuable lessons. I admit that I could be wrong on some issues but that is why I bring them to your face so you can clear it up if I have it wrong. That is why I say go to the source. You should not take this personal. If it was personal I would not be so gracious about your tone suggesting caution. keep in mind this is not ball room dancing that we are disussing here. So such tones can be taken as a physical challenge. Knowing you from previous interaction. I assume that you do not mean to come across like that so I will excuse it. So I will extend the same courtesy to you. So please do not take avantage my courtesy.
Rgds
Chango 
Looks like i stirred things up.Chango you need to chill.I dont think anyone is trying to be disrespectfull to Gee Sifu.Asking questions is human nature.Unfortunatly William Cheungs old stories have tarnished all WC to some extent.Also any information coming from a source with a vested interest in that information is always suspect.Its just the way of things.
Renee I suppose what I am asking is this.Gee Sifu taught WC before your book came out.The Bay area has many WC teachers.He shared a school with Chris Chan.People are always curious about something different.Other WC peeps in the Bay area had to be aware of HFY WC.They must have asked questions or had discussions about it.The similarity to TWC must have been seen by some.So were any of the questions about HFY asked and answered before your book came out?You and Robert must have done some research before giving them a chapter.John Murphy didnt just call up and say,"check out our secret WC and devote a chapter in your book to it."So what factors lead you to devote a chapter to Huen Seun WC?Did you notice the similarity to TWC ?If so what factors lead you to feel it was different enough to warrent a chapter and yet not mention TWC?TWC is more widely practiced afterall.What factors since publication have lead you to change your opinion about HFY if any?I would think that since Chris and Garrett knew each other at some point they would have discussed their mutual art that is why i asked if anyonje had talked to Chris.
Hunt 1
>Unfortunatly William Cheungs old stories have tarnished all WC to some extent.<
It’s amazing that the ones that don’t use their real names on forums talk the most junk. You’ll never hear me say anything about any sifus. Especially people who are senior to all of us. Had it not been for Wong Sheung Leung, and William Cheung who fought for the name of our style, most of us would never have even heard of Wing Chun. My profile is open. I have nothing to hide.
Phil
Hunt 1
–Looks like i stirred things up
Though there’s been a lot of frustration between you and Rene lately. You’ve also accomplished quite a bit in a short amount of time.
–Unfortunatly William Cheungs old stories have tarnished all WC to some extent.
LOL, according to you… if your lips itches, you’ve got it!!!
Big egos and personal agenda flex their muscles under today’s grand fire trine. Suit you fine.
Another thing, someone told me that only Kenneth Chung’s members like to mention Chris Chan name all the time. So are you one of them?
Hi Chango, Rene, Hunter and everybody,
I heard my name mentioned so I thought I would drop in.
I’m Matt Kwan one of Gee sifu students.
Alot has been said judging by the number of pages I just read through. If I can I would like to clarify some of the comments/questions about Gee sifu and his background with Chris Chan and William Cheung and hopefully dispell some of the rumors that may turn into something more than fiction/factual.
More recent comments first - Sifu Gee and Sifu Chris Chan are good friends. At the time when they shared a Studio Chris Chan was teaching Wing Chun while my Sifu was teaching Tai Chi/WuDang which is what Sifu Gee family gung fu was well famous for.
My sifu at the time had no intention of teaching WingChun publically. It was his personal martial arts to which he kept to himself and the few people he wished to share it with personally.
It is true that Sifu Gee’s WC looks totally different from Sifu Chan’s WC. It is true that HFY in appearance looks more similiar to Williams Cheungs WC than other YipMan WingChun Families although all WC Families share commonality with which makes WC noticed as Wing Chun. When placed side by side there is a resemblence between HFY & TWC, but each forms of WC - HFY and TWC are distinct and different in their own right.
As Chango has experience, since he has had the opportunity to have learned for periods of time from both Sifu Gee and Sifu Cheung, he can tell you they are different.
As for rumors that Rene had mentioned early:
Sifu Gee had never met Sifu William Cheung. So that would dispell the notion him being a student. Sifu Gee had learned his WC as a youth in China from SiGung Wong Ming.
As for Sifu Gee finding William Cheungs Wing Chun Material and then engineering it into HFY, this is also fiction. Sifu Gee’s knowledge is very indept and his skill level is very high. Learning from published material would not bring a person to a high level of understanding and skill level with sensitivity.
HFY was not engineer. Recently a Wong Sheung Leung descendant from Hong Kong paid our HFY school a visit. He wanted to see our WC for himself. That was a long distance to check us out. He said that there were many underground WC schools in HK and that he had hear of two underground HFY/Huen Suen schools. One was in Hong Kong, the other was in Macao and that other people (from HK) knew of them but never had the opportunity to find them. I suppose if I knew where it was (and I knew the history/background and i was from HK) I wouldn’t tell either.
As for speculating that Yipman or William Cheung had some early run in or association with a HFY practioner, I have no knowledge of that of any kind.
But for out of respect for my Sifu and Sifu William Cheung, please I would appreciate it if we can not spread rumors about the two of them knowing each other or having a student/teacher relationship. This causes unfounded controversy and more rumors/speculation in the long run.
Both of them are still accessible to ask one way or another. And Sifu Gee is the type of person you can go up to and ask, “Have you ever met William Cheung?” And he would answer you.
Matt Kwan
Chango - I regret we cannot discuss these things maturely and intelligently, and that my courtesy and generousity are not returned. Since I have no interest in politics or posturing, I’ll leave you be for now and hope we can return to it when more productive discussion is possible. As always, I wish you and yours well.
Rolling Hand - Exploring the methods of Hawkins Cheung might answer most of your questions. Robert’s personal system is just his attempt to organize everything he’s learned for the benefit of his student.
Hunter - Robert was mainly involved with the Hung Suen chapter, and it occured very late in the process (as did the Jee Shim chapter). We did manage to do some looking into, but we’ve yet to discuss this much publically.
Matt - Great to see you here! Once again you give me hope that these topics, like similar ones involving different lineages, can be discussed in a civil, respectful manner. Please understand, I wasn’t spreading completely baseless rumor. Everything I wrote I received directly from students of Cheung sifu or Gee sifu. As you might imagine, the similarity (even if grossly superficial) has interested them as well! There are wilder rumors as well, and these I didn’t include because they lacked even that foundation. I hope everyone understands that people enjoy mysteries. If someone saw Leung Sheung, Wong Sheung Leung, and Ho Kam Ming all doing SNT, the same in some ways, distinct in others, they may try to find out the connection (and stumble upon Yip Man), Same with Yip Man and Bruce Lee. Same with Chan Wah-Shun and Wong Wah-Sum. All with the same core, all similar, all distinct, all related, closer or further, in some way.
Rgds,
RR
Matt-
I also have to compliment your handling of this sticky situation. Someone once told me that I’d seen too many kung fu flicks when I mentioned honor. No, I think it’s my Marine Corps training. “Death before Dishonor” is the code I try to live by. We as martial artists should stand for something. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of thugs who know how to fight. You seem to be a good example of what I believe in.
Phil and RH
As to who I am.My name as everyone but you 2 seem to know is Hunter.Hunter was already taken when I joined the forum hence Hunt1.I have on numerous occasions given my background on this forum.No,Ken Chung is not in it nor is Leung Sheung.I have on many occasions on this forum and others invited anyone that is travelling to Florida,I am in the Tampa area, to come by for some Chi Sao or to shoot the **** etc.I am always looking to learn something.I also have an open door if someone feels the need to compare skills in an unfriendly manner and have stated this publicly on this forum and others.I have never read anything from either of you offering the same.So who is hiding?(I refer to friendly visits and touching of hands)
As to my comments about William Cheung,are you blind or just suffer from selective memory or reading?The controversy about TWC has been ongoing for about 25 years or so.Many of his Austrailian students have through the years expressed doubts about his stories.Many of his American students have said both publicly and privately that the story varied through the years.My statement reflects nothing other than what has happened over the years.I have no agenda and to imply such is ludicrous.His story of learning through Yip Man may be true if adjusted through the eyes of an 18 year old.I dont know and no one other than Bill knows.If you, like many others,suffer from ‘Sifu Love’,put your Sifu on a pedestal and forget he is just a person with human weaknesses that is your business.Dont attack or slight those who look at things objectively.To do so is dishonorable.
The search for hard facts is not always pleasant.If however all this nonsense about TWC ,HFY etc could be put to rest we would all be better off.
Just an observation
And not pertaining directly to anyone or anything said specificially in this thread…
But,
I have noticed that participants in this forum tend to equate polite language with reliability and impolite or aggressive language with nonsense. this is a major mistake. and the fact that it happens so often is itself a good argument against censorship.
Read for content - it’s either right or wrong, factwise; style is a personal matter that, if you don’t like, you needn’t emulate.