'Fist of the Red Junk Opera'-- New info or a "book report"?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
1

I have to admit I was little disappointed after reading the article “Fist of the Red Junk Opera”.

The authors’ first two paragraphs start off pretty good with claims that certain groups and people had specific agendas that perpetuate legends and myths in order to protect their interests or “lives”. They then claim that all strands of WCK trace themselves back to the Red Junk Opera Company yet they never once in the article tell us (or even hint at!) exactly how WCK was developed in the Red Junk. The next 7 ½ pages are essentially a high school book report that re-arranges history already presented in published works.

There are a few points I would like to address in particular. First, if Cheung Hin was in fact a cripple how could he have been “unsurpassed in martial skill”? If he was a beggar how could he have started an opera company, or at least become so famous at it? I think the most likely answer is that he was in fact a very highly skilled martial artist. Second, the authors state that Hin was in the opera in the 18th century (the 1700’s) but at the start of the article the authors say that WCK can be traced back to the 19th century-- What about the 100+ year gap in between? If Hin had exceptional martial skill but lived a century before the “creation” of WCK are the authors saying that he had nothing to do with the development of Wing Chun? Or are they saying that the creation of Wing Chun pre-dates the Red Junk of the 19th century? Third, as far as the origin of his skills- what is the difference between “Shaolin”, and “so-called Shaolin-School”? Where do the authors think he got his skills? Where was he originally from himself? What is his personal history before his acting career?

I guess my biggest questions are these: In the authors’ opinion, what exactly is the origin of WCK? Was it a mish-mash of styles put together by the 19th century Red Junk members? (if they say “yes” than Hin had nothing to do with the creation of Wing Chun and this flies in the face of even Yip Man history and legend). What does 7 ½ pages of confusing text detailing the Red Junk history have to do with the creation of Wing Chun? The authors claim in the first two paragraphs that certain legends about the creation of WCK are false and agenda driven–which legends are they referring to exactly?

If the authors want to write a history report then by all means do so but please label it as such. If the authors want to propose a hypothesis as to the origin of WCK (as the reader assumes they are doing after reading the first two paragraphs) then please do so!

In reference to the last paragraph in the article- We know what they taught-- the question is where (and when) did it come from! Isn’t this the real question?

I look forward to Part 2 and I hope that “To be continued…” means the authors will get to the meat of their argument with less regurgitated history. If they do refer to history I certainly hope they use it to support an argument!

Sincerely,

Jason K. Walz
Nomotion@cox.net

2

Hi JK,

Thank you for pointing out the article. I wasn’t even aware it was up. But dude, seriously, if you’re going flame me, least you could have done was posted the link: http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=229

(BTW- If I’ve misunderstood you, and your comments are sincere rather than part of the same old politcal bickering, let me know and I’ll address them over the weekend or early next week. I’d also be interested to know how you would compare it to other recent articles on WCK history in terms of supporting arguments).

Rgds,

RR

3

Re: ‘Fist of the Red Junk Opera’-- New info or a “book report”?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JK Walz
[B]I have to admit I was little disappointed after reading the article “Fist of the Red Junk Opera”.

JK: Overall, I share your disappointment. Rehashing general info from easily obtainable cultrural resources without looking to add new knowledge (or supporting a new hypothesis) should be beneath the dignity of this kind of forum. Certainly, it shows a level of timidity normally not associated with true researchers. After all, it is easy to continually harpoon other’s hypotheses. It takes courage to offer a significant hypothesis of your own and then support it with a logical presentation borne out of actual historical investigation.

Even as a rehash, this piece, as you so aptly pointed out, still has a few serious historical glitches. The authors purport that Wing Chun Kuen roots are in the 19th Century Red Boat… at the same time, they acknowledge that Tan Sao NG may have had an unchallengeable Tan… they also acknowledge that he came along in the 18th Century… To be more accurate, he actually came along in the last half of the 17th Century and retired from public view in the first quarter of the 18th Century… this can be verified in operatic records… if his Tan was (and is today) a pillar technique of Wing Chun Kung Fu, what in the world do they think was happening with that Tan between the first quarter of the 18th century and the 3rd quarter of the 19th Century when the Red Boat Opera Company flourished with its 19th Century Wing Chun roots? There still appears to be a minimum 130 year gap in their history. They keep beating around the bush on this gap, and at the same time fail to acknowledge the history that HFY and Chi Sim offer us for filling that gap. Hmmmmm! What could be the purpose for all of this evading of the 130 year gap?

Another problem: If the authors are saying Wing Chun had its roots in the 19th Century Red Boat Opera Company, then, as you pointed out, they are by default saying that Cheung Ng (“Hin” as they call him) had nothing to do with Wing Chun… it should be noted, that this defies even the Yip Man family legends, as well as the legends of virtually all of the modern day representations of Wing Chun, because virtually all of them make reference to Tan Sao Ng as one of the early pioneers of the system. If indeed, they are not trying to disenfranchise Tan Sao Ng’s role in Wing Chun history, then I’m back to the original question of, “What went on during the missing 130 years?”

Next problem: Why is it so difficult to accept the Shaolin roots of Wing Chun as trained and preserved by Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi? By the author’s own admission in this article, Tan Sao NG was supposedly an expert on Shaolin Kung Fu. If he played a role in Wing Chun history, then his Shaolin knowledge and roots would have had to come to play. It remains Interesting that two lineages of Wing Chun openly acknowledge their Shaolin roots and both of those lineages adequately address the missing 130 years of history in their family legends and lore. Yet, their lore remains ignored by these particular authors, even though the kung fu practiced in these two lineages is of the highest order of excellence.

It is time to begin asking if modern Wing Chun is really a collection of fragments of a more encompassing system passed on by disenfranchised opera members in the mid-to-late 19th Century, or is it a beast of its own with roots in the Red Boat of the 19th Century that simply borrowed the name of earlier, more extensive systems – a beast given life over a century and a half after Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun and Chi Sim Weng Chun practice and employment on battlefields.

There truly is no historical reason (at this point in time) to refute the claims of Hung Fa Yi and Chi Sim. However, there might be strong commercial reason to do so on the part of some - acknowledging the potential accuracy of Hung Fa Yi and Chi Sim claims on the origins of Wing Chun, could, in some eyes, lessen the perceived importance of some modern day expressions based on fragments captured from disbanded opera members. I would certainly hope we are above this kind of base “protectionism” if we are actively engaged in historical research and the education of others.

Richard

4

Nice to see the AZ contingent of the VTM is giving the article so much attention. While I respect your opinions, I would like offer mine in several areas.

  1. The article may seem like a “rehash” because it was originally written as background for the lecture I gave at the Friendship Seminar hosted by the VTM several years ago (which was received so well parts have been quoted back by members over the years :wink: ) Since that first draft, it was updated twice, once for Martial Arts Illustrated (which changed direction prior to its publication) and then for the version published here.

  2. The article may seem like a “book report” because, unlike others, it doesn’t rely on single-person heresay, but references established scholarly works (which themselves reference previous works and documents). Perhaps in the future more articles will be multi-sourced and reference those sources. I certainly hope so.

  3. The article makes no judgement on Tan Sao Ng, it merely references the three extent accounts of the origin of his nickname. While some may choose to believe ‘it makes more sense’ for the nickname to mean one thing, it is impossible for any ethical researcher to prove it one way or another at this point. To use faulty logic leaves too many possibilities (someone else might claim it ‘makes more sense’ that since he was a wanted fugitive on the other end of the country with no knowledge of the local dialect, he had to survive any way he could at first while he gradually formed friendships with the opera performers and eventually began to organize them; or someone else could suppose it ‘makes more sense’ that he was a martial master who at some point suffered from polio, causing him to become a singer rather than taking a martial role which would have better made use of his existing skills; the possibilities to speculate remain endless, yet less than productive.)

  4. While the term “Tan” in both Cheung’s nickname and the Wing Chun Kuen system is compelling (as Pan Nam and his author friend in Foshan pointed out over a decade ago), it is not conclusive and, rather than trying to ‘prove’ one person’s version or account, the authors here prefer to keep it as a possibility and work towards verifing it one way or another.

  5. If Tan Sao Ng had no connection to WCK, and the name is coincidental (which has to remain a possibility, even if one chooses to see it as unlikely) then there is no ‘gap’. If there is a connection (which also has to remain a possibility), then it cannot be filled with legends or with previously unaccounted for names, but with careful, well documented, and well referenced work.

  6. Chi Sim is a distinct art with its own rich culture and tradition, and has Andreas Hoffmann sifu to speak (excellently) on its behalf. Hoffmann sifu and myself have discussed these issues many times in the past, and I’ve enjoyed and learned from these discussions. That being said, what’s proposed in the full series of articles, while perhaps not in agreement with the legends of any one specific branch (which are important in their own right and should definately be respected and preserved) they are not incompatible with the arts themselves. And, FWIW, Chi Sim history, despite repeated attempts, cannot be seen to ‘back up’ any other Shaolin history claims, and certainly not the Tan Sao Ng story. If anything, the Chi Sim history more closely coroborates the Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San, and other established legends/stories of the Foshan branches.

  7. Foshan WCK is also a distinct family of art, perhaps with links to other arts with similar/same names, perhaps not. As more real research and historical information becomes available, it will be up to the practitioners of each art to determine what, if any, connections exist.

  8. The Yip Man legends do not claim Cheung Ng as their founder, nor do the other branches (even Pan Nam’s prior to the 1980s). By contrast, these lineages claim Ng Mui and/or Yim Wing-Chun as their founders. As these lineages also have kung-fu of the ‘highest order’, perhaps they should not be ignored either? (Though personally I believe no ethical researcher can put their own stylistic bias above the overall picture, and must acknowledge that none of these early histories/legends are yet verifiable).

  9. It is quite possible WCK has Shaolin roots. However, I don’t believe any honest researcher could say it is definate. Therefor, we leave the door open and try to see where the information takes us. Is there WCK in Shaolin? Is there WCK in the areas around Shaolin? Are the elements of WCK consistent with known Shaolin systems like Lohanquan? And on the flip side, is there a past history, dating back decades if not centuries, of arts not associated with Shaolin using the Shaolin name?

  10. There are more options than those listed. WCK could also be an art that was originated in the 1850s, with different versions branching out at different points over the succeeding 150 or so years. Rather than a ‘collection of fragments’ or the ‘borrower of a name’, it could be development all its own, combing elements the way steel does - to make something strong, indebted to what came before, yet unique in its own right. There are many ‘possibilities’ that remain, and again, no ethical researcher can definitively prove yet which one is the case.

  11. There is no point to refute the claims of Yip Man or Yuen Kay-San either, yet myself, David Peterson, Benny Meng, and others have called the Ng Mui/Yim Wing-Chun creation story into question - and good for us. If we’re ethical (sorry to keep harping on that), then the Cheung Ng story, or the Jee Shim story, or the story of any idividual or branch, cannot be given preferential treatment. They must all be respected, but not blindly adhered to, and none, IMHO, should be placed above the other until definate proof is found one way or another.

  12. Since I’m not opening any branch schools (don’t even teach), not offering any tape sets (don’t plan on it), don’t sell t-shirts or tickets for admission, I’m not sure how ‘marketing’ could be a factor on my end. If I’m being accused of interfering with the marketing of others, I apologize, it is not my intent (I don’t consider it a factor).

  13. The VTM has offered some bold theories in recent times, and if they can be seen as honest works and not attempts to discredit the established branches and their stories (Ng Mui, Yim Wing-Chun, etc.), the same courtesy should be extended to others (especially those who, years past, helped lead the way in introducing branches like Jee Shim (Chi Sim) and Hung Suen (HFY) to the English-reading world - leading to people like the VTM making contact with people like Andreas Hoffmann sifu and Garette Gee sifu in the first place - hardly ‘protectionistic’).

Richard, despite some past behavior, I’ve always admired the way you’ve asked for reasonable, gentlemanly conduct on public forums and would hope you would extend me the same courtesy I extend you and yours - even though we may disagree at times (especially if we disagree, since any field is only made stronger when passionate people disagree in a gentlemanly, respectful manner, and present a wider range of opinions and information).

I post on this forum almost everyday, on a wide range of subjects, and with a wide range of people (and my time is as valuable as anyone else’s, I simply choose to spend some of it here). I hope, since the comments on my article thusfar come only from one group, even from someone with no previous posts, and who seem to post very specifically, that there is no partisanship or pettiness at play here.

The article may be completely off base and could prove to be wrong (though I do believe it is a reasonable interpretation of available information). If it is, I will pick myself up, dust myself off, and try again. Likewise, your previous or next article might be 100% on target. You might solve the riddle once and for all. If you do, you will have my most profound congratulations and I’ll ship a bottle of champagne to yours and Meng sifu’s door. In the meantime, I’ll continue to read your articles with interest and consideration, and if I choose to comment on them, I will do so with generosity and respect. To do anything else would be my loss.

Best regards,

RR

5

BTW- Anyone else, not affiliated with the usual groups, have any feedback? It might come off as a little dense, but we felt that if we didn’t provide the background in the first 3 parts, the rest would seem difficult to place (you would have to take our word for it, rather than seeing the broader cultural backdrop and seeing how it fit together).

The next part, when we finally finish it, will be the martial history of the Red Junk, and hopefully it, and the part thereafter, will tie things together.

RR

6

FWIW- I dont see the Red Junk origin thesis or the HFY theses as history- at least as yet. They seem to be interesting stories added to the earlier and more established myths,.

7

[QUOTE]Originally posted by reneritchie

  1. The Yip Man legends do not claim Cheung Ng as their founder, nor do the other branches (even Pan Nam’s prior to the 1980s). By contrast, these lineages claim Ng Mui and/or Yim Wing-Chun as their founders. As these lineages also have kung-fu of the ‘highest order’, perhaps they should not be ignored either? (Though personally I believe no ethical researcher can put their own stylistic bias above the overall picture, and must acknowledge that none of these early histories/legends are yet verifiable).

Rene,

Thanks for the response. I fully concur that the Yip Man lineage doesn’t claim Cheung Ng as Wing Chun’s founder… the most senior individuals of the Yip Man lineage openly admit that the Yim Wing Chun story is a nice fairy tale, and in absence of a more solid story of the system’s beginnings, they still tell it, but NOT with any level of seriousness. They do, however, list Cheung Ng as an important figure in Wing Chun’s lineage (a couple of generations AFTER the supposed time of Yim Wing Chun). That would make Wing Chun itself significantly older than the Red Boat activity of the 19th Century. Each of the questions you have raised in your response is a valid one. We’ve all asked those same questions. They all lead to a minimum of 130 years of missing history between Cheung Ng and potentially 40 years of history prior to the zenith of his opera activity. It is those years we are looking to flesh out. Interestingly, both Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi (without any coaching or leading questions from our researchers) both offered fresh perspectives on those missing years. But, as researchers, words simply weren’t good enough for us. We decided to look as deeply as we could by actually studying them (learning their philosophies, strategies, tactics, training methodologies, etc…). We’ve spent over three years looking in-depth at their science and will most definitely spend a few more. We felt their existence alone was worth some merit in the writing of history. Certainly the depth of their science should carry some additional merit, and should ultimately point to additional historical findings. And we’ve found very consistent employment of Chan Buddhist philosophy, as well as very advanced weapons training and employment concepts - concepts that simply do not exist in modern Wing Chun. Please don’t tell me I can’t make that statement, because I most certainly am qualified to do so. The knowledge in Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi is real. In particular, Hung Fa Yi’s knowledge of strategy and tactics is quite advanced and reaches a depth that is militarily irrefutable (likewise, I am quite qualified as a military strategist and planner to make that statement). This is a statement I cannot make about any other “martial art” system I have encountered over the last 40 years. Yes, I have seen a lot of good physical attributal training in many places. The Yip Man System is one such system and there are many others. But nowhere have I encountered the depth of three dimensional knowledge, completely intertwined with Chan philosophy, brilliant strategies, and totally efficient training methodologies that I have seen in Hung Fa Yi. No one man (or even ten men) could have created it. I can make similar statements about Chi Sim.

In essence, the big question for us historians is this? Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi actually exist and they are incredibly rich in knowledge and science - both at a depth we have never seen in the modern versions of Wing Chun (and we have spent considerable time trying to find a similar depth in modern Wing Chun - it just isn’t there). SO, WHERE DID HFY AND CHI SIM COME FROM? We can’t just ignore them because they are relatively new on the “popular scene”. They tell us they have been taught secretly for over three centuries and Chinese political history over the past three centuries lends credibility to their claim. We could just call them ‘marketing hype’ if they weren’t so darned good! Frankly, that was my initial impression. I can’t speak for Master Meng or the rest of the museum research staff, but, for myself, I didn’t want to hear about anything practiced quietly or secretly, because I immediately expected hype. I looked seriously into them initially believing that they could be eliminated from further research on the basis of shallow science alone. What we all found was just the opposite. Hung Fa Yi and Chi Sim depths are simply staggering. As researchers, we came to an initial conclusion - indepth study had to continue. These were not hoaxes that could be dismissed. Indeed, they were far more complete than the fragments we encountered elsewhere. We now have four professional archeologists, two professional curators, several philosophers, and two professional military historians on our research team. We all came to the same conclusion. What we can do for now is learn these systems (both as students and as researchers) and try to find educational parallels in history for their methodologies, their poetry, and their philosophy. Likewise, we can learn their strategies and tactics and then look for parallels in Chinese military history as well. This is how history will be fleshed out. This is the established approach employed by archeologists and historical scientists for centuries. This is the approach we chose in the museum.

I started by concurring with your questions. I’m simply not willing to leave them unanswered 'til the end of time if there is an acceptable methodology for investigating historical parallels. I truly believe serious study of Hung Fa Yi and Chi Sim will give us those parallels, and many solid hypotheses will come out of said study. Instead of “writing off” Wing Chun’s history, I still hope to write “about” it.

Regards

Richard

8

Joy - Agreed. At this point, however, I think most people encounter the different stories without any context, and filling in a little of the time and culture helps to give them some of that context, even before the debate about different theories begin. So, the first 3 parts of that article tackle the ‘background’, and IMHO, established creation stories and new theories alike benefit from this.

Richard - I very much appreciate your responses. Once again, I feel that different opinions and interpretations are invaluable to us at this point as they promote what is perhaps the greatest tools we have - thought and discussion. Now, as in the past, your feedback causes me to continually re-think and re-check the information - to find errors and correct them, or to better back up what I feel is the right direction. History is a serious endeavor for serious people, and one that, IMHO, has to be feuled by passion but tempered by professionalism, maturity, and respect. Thus, whether at the end of the day (be it today or two or ten years from today) we agree or not, I thank you and yours for your continued involvement.

WRT Cheung Ng, while it has also been my experience that privately, some seniors (I’m not sure how many, some seem very firmly rooted in tradition) in the established branches will say that the Ng Mui/Yim Wing-Chun account is perhaps more fable than fact. However, up until recently (their visit to Pan Nam and Yip Chun’s article which followed it), they did not seem to be aware of Cheung Ng in any Wing Chun Kuen context. Following this, some may or may not imbrace the idea that a man with the nickname Tan Sao must have been involved in the creation/development/dissemination of Wing Chun Kuen, they, like most of us, lack evidence to support this idea. Thus, while intriguing and enticing, it must remain a theory at this point, its relative validity compared to other theories an individual choice rather than an established necessity. And even if the theory pans out, there are many more unanswered questions (for example, if Tan doesn’t mean ‘paralized’ or ‘begging’, where does it come from? Does Shaolin have a documented usage of Tan Sao predating Cheung Ng?) And its still possible that there was a degree of, if not absolute, influence, but this would also be speculation (Cheung’s northern choreography influencing the eventual linear formation of WCK sets, or Cheung’s nickname being remembered when Red Junk performers learned the water element palm (“Wah! Looks like I’m asking for money…”). I agree many questions remain, and its up to all of us to go through them methodically.

WRT Chi Sim, again, their history seems to more closely mirror Yip Man and other branches than any Tan Sao Ng proposal, and in the case of these branches (be they Chi Sim or Ng Mui), they don’t and never did have a missing 130 years.

I do agree that the Tan Sao Ng proposal has a missing 130 years, which always seemed difficult to reconcile in the past (with Pan Nam’s information placing Tan Sao Ng in the 1850s and the original information we received from Gee sifu implying the Red Junk performers (Wong, Leung, Kam, Biu, etc.) in the 1730s (since no intermediary generations were offered). Thus, I think the ‘missing 130 years’ are more properly the province of those who propose the Tan Sao Ng theory (Pan Nam’s followers and the VTM at this point), and just a nagging thorn in the side of the rest until the exact relationship between Tan Sao Ng and Wing Chun Kuen can be determined (if ever).

WRT HFY, as you know, we found Gee sifu’s information so potentially intriguing that we included it in Complete Wing Chun despite our inability at the time to find coroborating sources in China (which we did for all other branches, and which we couldn’t do for Fut Sao which had also been proposed to us). As you rightly point out, it’s compelling. However, IMHO, ALL the accounts of ALL the branches deserve that same respect. If someone or some group is happy to deconstruct the histories of other branches, if they are honorable people, their version should be just as open to deconstruction.

WRT ‘science’, I continue to believe this is a confusing term open to many interpretations. There are social sciences, political sciences, psuedo-sciences, pure and applied sciences, theoretical sciences, etc. and all of these only occasionally and under specific conditions overlay the real world. They are more properly an ongoing quest for better and more precise understanding than they are a complete and current binding. That even pure and applied science is still finding error in past hypothesis and discovering new ones (again, remember flogistron?) shows that it cannot, especially in the context of history be the measuring stick (do universities even offer a BSc. in history? In Canada, at least, it’s a BA). (There are similar problems with using ‘science’ to explain the dynamic interaction of two self-determined bodies in combat - they can’t even through enough football, baseball, and boxing money behind it to sufficiently explain one body in motion at this point - but it will quickly get out of my depth so I leave that to the medico’s on this board to once again point out.)

WRT to organization. I agree that HFY is a beautifully organized and systematic method. However, I don’t believe that refinements of this nature are proof of being an older and greater set. While its possible that other branches changed over time (maybe lost, maybe found ways they prefered to do things), its also possible that HFY became this way over time. In the absence of definitive proof (a historically verifiable book found in Fujian documenting HFY from the 1700s exactly as its practiced today), IMHO its presumptuous and disrespectful in the extreme to cast WCK as ‘collection of fragments’ or as some lesser step-child. Again, respect all as you would have them respect one.

WRT where do Chi Sim and HFY come from? First, I believe it profoundly unfair to graft the two together in this manner. Chi Sim is once again a distinct art with a distinct lineage, and anything else should be more than capable of standing on its own. Chi Sim is an art widespread, with generations in China, and a history verifiable back to the Red Junk.

If we’re speaking beyond that, or speaking about the Shaolin connection in their stories, like the Shaolin connection in the Yip Man, Yuen Kay-San, etc. stories, then I believe we lack the supporting information at this point to speak in absolutes. They simply suffer from the same problem as the Ming-scion stories of the Hung Moon (as Murray put it, no one ever met a Ming-scion, but everyone knew someone who knew someone who had). Basically, whether we talk of Leung Jan or Fung Siu-Ching or some other ancestor, they never went to Shaolin nor did they meet someone from Shaolin, they were merely told about Shaolin, and passed on the telling. This is rich culture, but its not verifiable history (though it could be at some point if you folks work hard and prove it 8) )

So, where do Chi Sim or Ng Mui Weng or Wing Chun tuly and absolutely come from? Perhaps from Shaolin, perhaps from the martial arts practiced aboard the Red Junks, perhaps from Hendrik’s theory on Emei. Hopefully through everyone’s continued passion, tempered by their continued professionalism, maturity, and mutual respect, we may get closer to the answer and one even know (at least until the next generation when they discover oxygen :wink: )

Richard, it’s truly been a pleasure. If you knew me, you’d know I far prefer discussion with those of differing opinions and ideas. I look forward to your next article, and hope you push the bar higher for everyone.

Respectfully,

RR

9

[QUOTE]Originally posted by reneritchie
[B]Hi JK,

(BTW- If I’ve misunderstood you, and your comments are sincere rather than part of the same old politcal bickering, let me know and I’ll address them over the weekend or early next week. I’d also be interested to know how you would compare it to other recent articles on WCK history in terms of supporting arguments).

Rene- My comments were sincere and I do agree with several of the points you made in reply to Sifu Loewenhagen. I still feel that you didn’t really say anything in the article. Maybe I am wrong in the assumption that the point of the article was to offer a reasonable explanation of the origin of WCK. Maybe it is simply an attempt to restate established fact and history.
Quite frankly, even if this is the case I found the article simply difficult to read. This is a criticism aside from one based on content and is from a completely non-kung fu point of view . While I am not the most educated person in the world I do have a BA in anthropology from ASU and I am used to reading and writing on scholarly works. I felt that you had a hard time arranging and presenting the information in a concise, clear, and well structured form. Remember- all research or scholarly writing must be both rigorous and elegant. If you fail on any of the two counts then you need to try a second or third time until it is rigorous and elegant.

As far as I can tell (and I might be wrong on this) here is the problem with all current research on the origins of Wing Chun: There are no documents concerning the art prior to the Red Junk period of the 19th century. No one can clain their “story” is correct based on written docs so everyone does the next best thing- they look at the artifacts. Oral histories, current traditions, training methodologies, language, and others are all used to try to reasonably re-build the development of the art. This is exactly what the VTM does. Unfortunately this practice tends to hurt others feelings even if it is non-agenda driven. I have found that a lot of people have a hard time “emptying” their tea cups. They cannot stand to have their ego bruised and certainly cannot afford to have their reality changed. I have to admit that I find all of this “internet” kung fu quite rediculous. I spend a lot of time reading posts here and on the WCML and while I am tempted to comment often I have to stop myself because it kind of pointless. The only way you can make a determination as to the validity or effectiveness of a claim in the martial arts is to “experience” it. Do you agree with this? Who knows who sits behind their computer making claims…sorry, this is straying from the original topic at hand.

Instead of re-using and re-analyzing someone elses work a true researcher proposes something new or, at least, comes out in the first paragraph of thier article and states that they are simply supporting a current theory.

What does Occam’s Razor say? If two hypotheses are equal in all parts always choose the most simple of the two (if this is incorrect I am sure someone will let me know). I simply cannot accept that something like Wing Chun was developed by opera players on the Red Junks. It is too elegant and rigorous itself to not have a devoted, planned, and masterminded development.

JK

10

Richard,

"The knowledge in Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi is real. "

Certainly it can be. However, just because it can be real doesn’t mean this is the oldest of all WCK.
Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi can be the greatest art.
However,

A, They have nothing to do with Yik Kam or Cho Family line of WCK. We in the Yik Kam lineage have details evidents for our art and the related mother arts. Yik Kam WCK was /is transmitting directly within the Cho family for past 100 of years . We are certain with who we are.

B, Since you and Benny have made claim about two styles to be the oldest, now you have to back up all your claim with specific details.---- Which, Where, when, who, how. ( See page 65 of KungfuMagazine Sep/OCt 2001)

"No one man (or even ten men) could have created it. "

The following are my opinions for Benny and you.

A, If Tan Sau Ng’s martial art is not Shao Lin but another type of martial art which exist with writing evidents in Ming Dynasty. Then, no one will be able to argue about Tan Sau Ng’s art.

B, Reading some books without the certification by A Chan patriach cannot claim to know Chan.

To the most, one can only claim that one study Chan Buddhism.
That’s it.

By the Way, Chan is not a philosophy.

In addition,
One can’t just visit some website and chat and thinking he knows Chan.

C, Related to Hung Mun connection in Qing Dynasty,
the ancestor can be Hung Mun but that doesn’t default to his WCK related to Hung Mun.

There again had to have specific details and past evident to show the line of WCK being practiced actually did related to Hung Hun in Qing Dynaty.

Hendrik

11

Originally posted by Hendrik
[B]Richard,

"The knowledge in Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi is real. "

Certainly it can be. However, just because it can be real doesn’t mean this is the oldest of all WCK.
Chi Sim and Hung Fa Yi can be the greatest art.
However,

A, They have nothing to do with Yik Kam or Cho Family line of WCK. We in the Yik Kam lineage have details evidents for our art and the related mother arts. Yik Kam WCK was /is transmitting directly within the Cho family for past 100 of years . We are certain with who we are.

B, Since you and Benny have made claim about two styles to be the oldest, now you have to back up all your claim with specific details.---- Which, Where, when, who, how. ( See page 65 of KungfuMagazine Sep/OCt 2001)

"No one man (or even ten men) could have created it. "

The following are my opinions for Benny and you.

A, If Tan Sau Ng’s martial art is not Shao Lin but another type of martial art which exist with writing evidents in Ming Dynasty. Then, no one will be able to argue about Tan Sau Ng’s art.

B, Reading some books without the certification by A Chan patriach cannot claim to know Chan.

To the most, one can only claim that one study Chan Buddhism.
That’s it.

By the Way, Chan is not a philosophy.

In addition,
One can’t just visit some website and chat and thinking he knows Chan.

C, Related to Hung Mun connection in Qing Dynasty,
the ancestor can be Hung Mun but that doesn’t default to his WCK related to Hung Mun.

There again had to have specific details and past evident to show the line of WCK being practiced actually did related to Hung Hun in Qing Dynaty.

Hendrik [/B]

Hendrik,

Maybe I’m just slow, but I didn’t understand a thing you said! If you really made the statement that Chan isn’t philosophy, then youy need a new Chan teacher.

Richard

12

"No one can clain their “story” is correct based on written docs so everyone does the next best thing- they look at the artifacts. Oral histories, current traditions, training methodologies, language, and others are all used to try to reasonably re-build the development of the art. This is exactly what the VTM does.
Unfortunately this practice tends to hurt others feelings even if it is non-agenda driven. "

Since you have a BA in anthropology from ASU and you used to reading and writing on scholarly works.

What do you think about VTM claim without specifics?

“I have found that a lot of people have a hard time “emptying” their tea cups.”

when it is not tea but coffe.
Why is people have to accept it?

" They cannot stand to have their ego bruised and certainly cannot afford to have their reality changed. "

A, Even If Tan Sau Ng master Shao Lin MA, Shao Lin Tai Tzu DNA doesn’t fit the DNA of SLT. But White Crane’s fit.

B, Bai Fut is a code name of attacking Fut San city not related to Buddhism or Chan or Shao LIn.

Can you stand these realities?

" I simply cannot accept that something like Wing Chun was developed by opera players on the Red Junks. It is too elegant and rigorous itself to not have a devoted, planned, and masterminded development."

It doesn’t matter you can or cannot accept.
It is about what is reality.

13

I’m a simple guy who talks funny and admires the Wing Chun art.

I like hearing about the Hung Fa Yi stuff AND the Yim Wing Chun stuff.

It really doesn’t matter to me if it’s real or not. All I know is that from pictures, I can see that modern day practitioners of the style are very good at what they do.

Richard Loewenhagen appears to be an outstanding exponent of Wing Chun. I don’t know anything about Hung Fa Yi, and I’d be interested in finding out more.

I have extended my invitation to visit my new school (“Huang’s Kung Fu Academy”) to yuanfen, and I’ll do so to Master Loewenhagen right now.

My storefront is still being worked on, but we’ll have a grand opening in a few weeks.

Masters yuanfen and Loewenhagen, I would be honored to meet you both in person either on or after the opening day.

14

Originally posted by R Loewenhagen
[B]

Hendrik,

Maybe I’m just slow, but I didn’t understand a thing you said! If you really made the statement that Chan isn’t philosophy, then youy need a new Chan teacher.

Richard [/B]

Richard,

I can understand your confusion about martial art and Chan.

You need to learn more about Chinese classical.

See, as I said one cannot learn Chan by just reading book or from internet. and thinking oh this is philosophy…

Hendrik

15

“It doesn’t matter you can or cannot accept.
It is about what is reality.”

No offense but I think your reality and mine are vastly different! I can’t understand what you write and am having a difficult time replying.

Again- the best way to harmonize realities is by sharing reality face to face- Do you agree??

JK

16

Richard - Hendrik’s Chan teacher is an inheritor of Xu Yun and a classmate of Hai Deng. If you find Hendrik incomprehensible or interpret him as incorrect, it might be more respectful to blame his understanding, transmission, or your (mis)interpretation of him, then to bring his Chan sifu into it. You might also want to try first hand experience of Hendrik and his family’s WCK - it could create a paradigm shift in your thinking as profound as HFY or Chi Sim (though you may doubt it now as you say you doubted them then).

JK - In that case, thank you for your reply. The goal of the article (which, as I said, was written several years ago as prep for my lecture at the VTM) was to provide Western enthusiasts with what in our opinions was vital background material thusfar unprovided. Without a background, we felt the various theories were all ungrounded. So, while I feel your comment about ‘book report’ was petty and political, I also think there is some truth to it. We have gone out, done some work, and are suming up the background for those who are interested, before getting on with the rest.

Interesting that you’re are anthropologist. I have two (one master, on PhD) cultural anthros in my immediate family, as well as an MA in history of art and architecture and a PhD. in psychology. So, despite my own interests in pursuing art and technology, I have a passing familiarity with the processes (especially proof-reading, LOL!),the good and the bad.

I’m sorry the article came off a little dense. There was, quite simply, too much to really do justice to (at least with my meager writing skills). Hopefully I can improve that part in the future. WRT Occam’s Razor, I agree with you, but since WCK is thusfar only found in and around the Red Junk routes, and all branches have at least one story tracing back to them, it must, IMHO, be regarded as the simplest explination thusfar available. I also love and admire WCK, but not to the point where I’d prefer to think some diety dropped it down from heaven. The pursuit of perfection, I think, is more simply explained by the refinements of succeeding generations, rather than any legendary superhuman ancestor that remains unknown or unproveable.

But, maybe you guys will prove me wrong! As I said, drinks will be on me.

Rgds,

RR

17

“No offense but I think your reality and mine are vastly different!”

I can’t understand what you write and am having a difficult time replying. "

Certainly different people have different belive and point of view.

'Again- the best way to harmonize realities is by sharing reality face to face- Do you agree??"

My belive is - Education is the best way to share.

18

Originally posted by reneritchie
[B]
Hendrik’s Chan teacher is an inheritor of Xu Yun and a classmate of Hai Deng. If you find Hendrik incomprehensible or interpret him as incorrect, it might be more respectful to blame his understanding, transmission, or your (mis)interpretation of him, then to bring his Chan sifu into it. You might also want to try first hand experience of Hendrik and his family’s WCK - it could create a paradigm shift in your thinking as profound as HFY or Chi Sim (though you may doubt it now as you say you doubted them then).

[/B]

Rene,

Thank you to speak for my Chan sifu.

Chan is not a philophy.
It is a “boat” to cross over the river of life and death.

Hendrik

19

[QUOTE]Originally posted by HuangKaiVun
[B]I’m a simple guy who talks funny and admires the Wing Chun art.

I like hearing about the Hung Fa Yi stuff AND the Yim Wing Chun stuff.

Richard Loewenhagen appears to be an outstanding exponent of Wing Chun. I don’t know anything about Hung Fa Yi, and I’d be interested in finding out more.

I have extended my invitation to visit my new school (“Huang’s Kung Fu Academy”) to yuanfen, and I’ll do so to Master Loewenhagen right now.

Huang Kai Vun,

I’d very much like to meet you as well. Let me know where your school is going to be (address) and what you will be teaching. We are located in the Paseo Del Oro shopping center on the northeast corner of Alma School and Elliott Roads in Chandler. Come on up and visit me. I look forward to the experience and friendship.

As a matter of fact, Master Benny Meng (Ving Tsun Museum Curator) will be here next weekend doing a seminar on various Wing Chun topics from Yip Man Biu Jee to Hung Fa Yi gate theories and combat concepts. Give me a call at (480) 820-2428 and I’ll give you the times and details if you are interested.

Regards

Richard

20

? + ? = ?? Chan is missing!

Quote:

Rene,

Thank you to speak for my Chan sifu.

Chan is not a philophy.
It is a “boat” to cross over the river of life and death.

Hendrik

Chan doesn’t know life and death
That boat is just a junk
No more, no less…

The wild geese do not intend to reflect their images
The water has no mind to receive them

Admirable is he
Chan when he sees lightning
does not say
“life goes by like a flash”

humm…