History of WCK: Tan Sau Ng

JPinAZ · January 20, 2012, 12:15am

I copied my latestest posts from another thread regarding Tan Sau Ng, his role in WCK’s proliferation and how his name came about to this new thread to continue discussion with Lee Chiang Po.
Any opinions or comments are welcome!

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1153405]Here is some feedback from a recent workshop regarding our understanding of Tan Sao Ng based on Hung Fa Yi’s history regarding his connections to WCK, as well as his involvment in both the Red Boat Society (and thru Wong Wah Bo) and Boxer Society (and thru Hung Gun Biu):

http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3214&p=20819#post20819
http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3214&p=20792#post20792[/QUOTE]

A more in-depth write-up on Hung Fa Yi’s position on Red Boat/Hung Gun Boxer Society and connection with Tan Sau Ng:
http://hfy108.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3238&p=20904#post20904

Technical information regarding the “5 Tan Saus” of Tan Sau Ng.

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1153682]As far as HFY’s history regarding Taan Sau Ng, the reason for ‘5’ in his name was in reference to how he could describe/represent all of the primary WC concepts/principles through use of his (5) taan saus.

In HFY WCK, we have a whole training platform focusing specifically on these 5 taan saus, which are further divided into 3 taan ‘saus’ (1 for centerline, 2 for Shoulder/5-line), and 2 that are actually tan ‘kius’ (for inner/outer gate ranges). Depending on application, these ‘5 taan saus’ express the following main concepts:
Centerline
Half point & 2-line defense concepts
Box & Gate theories
Doi ying/joi ying energy concepts
And in general, the represnt HFY’s Time/Space/Energy concept.[/QUOTE]

sanjuro_ronin · January 20, 2012, 2:00pm

Just a quick “FYI”:
For something to be viewed as historical it must be verified by multiple attestations.
Which should mean multiple independent sources.
Anecdotal “history” is just that and nothing more.
Opinions and “stories” must be verified before one views them as historical.
And even then when some evidence is accepted as historical that does NOT make it correct, it just means that it has been collaborated with another independent source.
An example would be:
Source A) states that TSN was part of the Red Boat society but this source is of the TSN lineage and as such has a vested interest in claiming such.
Source B) confirms this and source B) is independent and has no vested interest ( a police document that shows the names of those that belong to the RD soceity for example).
What you now have is one bias source and one independent source that verifies it.
BUT all that does is identify A person named TSN that is mentioned as a member of the RB society, it does NOT collaborate any other part of the story.

Vajramusti · January 20, 2012, 2:10pm

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1153743]Just a quick “FYI”:
For something to be viewed as historical it must be verified by multiple attestations.
Which should mean multiple independent sources.
Anecdotal “history” is just that and nothing more.
Opinions and “stories” must be verified before one views them as historical.
And even then when some evidence is accepted as historical that does NOT make it correct, it just means that it has been collaborated with another independent source.
An example would be:
Source A) states that TSN was part of the Red Boat society but this source is of the TSN lineage and as such has a vested interest in claiming such.
Source B) confirms this and source B) is independent and has no vested interest ( a police document that shows the names of those that belong to the RD soceity for example).
What you now have is one bias source and one independent source that verifies it.
BUT all that does is identify A person named TSN that is mentioned as a member of the RB society, it does NOT collaborate any other part of the story.[/QUOTE]

Good points.

sanjuro_ronin · January 20, 2012, 2:28pm

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1153747]------------------------------------------------------

Good points.[/QUOTE]

Thanks Joy.
Personally I have never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA, perhaps because I know how “loose” many people are with their views of history of their own systems and how much gray area there truly is in EVERY MA system.
Also because what has been done before has nothing to do with what is being done now ( or lacktherof).
However I do know that for some this stuff is very important but I think that if it is that important then that it must be researched in the correct way.

Vajramusti · January 20, 2012, 3:57pm

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1153748]Thanks Joy.
Personally I have never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA, perhaps because I know how “loose” many people are with their views of history of their own systems and how much gray area there truly is in EVERY MA system.
Also because what has been done before has nothing to do with what is being done now ( or lacktherof).
However I do know that for some this stuff is very important but I think that if it is that important then that it must be researched in the correct way.[/QUOTE]-

Hi Sanjuro-Martial arts histories are notoriously unreliable specially when put out as marketing devices.

Douglas Wile’s work on taichi history is a notable exception.

Oral history for purposes of pointing out something in an art can help with insights for students on what a teacher is thinking or thought.

History is not science but still there are standards in historical research- plus there are blind peer review requirements.

Not everything has to pass the tests of historical scholarship..for enjoyment or learning some desired skills.. But the search for legitimacy and acceptance often is a driving force in the making of many historical claims…specially in kung fu.

joy

sanjuro_ronin · January 20, 2012, 4:12pm

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1153760]-

Hi Sanjuro-Martial arts histories are notoriously unreliable specially when put out as marketing devices.

Douglas Wile’s work on taichi history is a notable exception.

Oral history for purposes of pointing out something in an art can help with insights for students on what a teacher is thinking or thought.

History is not science but still there are standards in historical research- plus there are blind peer review requirements.

Not everything has to pass the tests of historical scholarship..for enjoyment or learning some desired skills.. But the search for legitimacy and acceptance often is a driving force in the making of many historical claims…specially in kung fu.

joy[/QUOTE]

Agreed my friend

LoneTiger108 · January 20, 2012, 4:32pm

I understand those that prefer not to even think about past stories, I too take every bit of ‘lore’ or ‘his-story’ with a pinch of salt, but has anyone ever considered that Tan Sau Ng and Ng Jung So are one and the same?

Wayfaring · January 20, 2012, 4:44pm

[QUOTE=Vajramusti;1153760]-

Hi Sanjuro-Martial arts histories are notoriously unreliable specially when put out as marketing devices.

Douglas Wile’s work on taichi history is a notable exception.

Oral history for purposes of pointing out something in an art can help with insights for students on what a teacher is thinking or thought.

History is not science but still there are standards in historical research- plus there are blind peer review requirements.

Not everything has to pass the tests of historical scholarship..for enjoyment or learning some desired skills.. But the search for legitimacy and acceptance often is a driving force in the making of many historical claims…specially in kung fu.

joy[/QUOTE]

You guys are both something else, especially considering there is ABOUT ZERO material today published on the history of WCK that passes stringent historical research requirements.

HFY has oral tradition and a few artifacts.

Is it possible to enjoy the tradition as a story and interesting perspective without being ********s?

I mean the nun story is a history story told and retold. It’s an interesting perspective too. But we don’t see threads on that replete with visits from Bildad and Zophar with congratulatory slaps on the back due to their stimulating educational critical talents.

CFT · January 20, 2012, 4:57pm

[QUOTE=LoneTiger108;1153764]has anyone ever considered that Tan Sau Ng and Ng Jung So are one and the same?[/QUOTE]Totally different generation, and the ‘Ng’ in ‘Tan Sau Ng’ is the number 5, whereas the ‘Ng’ in ‘Ng Jung So’ is a surname (Wu in Mandarin).

JPinAZ · January 20, 2012, 5:01pm

What is funny sanjuro, for someone that “never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA”, you’re the first to reply on a historical discussion thread

Now, if you paid much any attention to what I wrote, I was clear to state this is “Hung Fa Yi’s history” (as passed down orally thru our lineage), as well as “our position” on Tan Sau Ng. If you or somoene isn’t from my lineage, it might not be your history. That’s fine too.

BUT, most lineages do point back to Tan Sau Ng as part of their oral history. I went one step further and pointed to how this oral history about TSN, that most all WC lineages mention in their own history, ties back to our system training and knowledge. Is it ‘proof’? Nope. But it’s pretty interesting to me!

LoneTiger108 · January 20, 2012, 5:37pm

[QUOTE=CFT;1153773]Totally different generation, and the ‘Ng’ in ‘Tan Sau Ng’ is the number 5, whereas the ‘Ng’ in ‘Ng Jung So’ is a surname (Wu in Mandarin).[/QUOTE]

I don’t know if the generation thing really matters when we are discussing Martial nicknames does it?? Just speculating. And FWIW ‘Wu’ is 5 too. So can anyone provide the Chinese characters for his name, like, anyone?

He is a mystery, as is this Tan Sau Ng ‘legend’ as I have heard that could have been a nickname for Ng Mui too, and ‘he’ could have been the first openly gay Monk.

And hasn’t anyone heard the one about the opium den being the centre of ALL legends associated with Wing Chun?? And guess who owned an opium den?

For all we know Ng Jung So, Tan Sau Ng & Beggar So are the same person and that actually makes some sense I think

If we are looking for facts, wasn’t it the Yiu Family who housed Ng Jung So in his later years, like the Fungs did for Leung Jan? Ng Jung So even had kids, so there is every chance his family lives on to this day (and I will say the same for Wing Chun!)

sanjuro_ronin · January 20, 2012, 5:42pm

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1153774]What is funny sanjuro, for someone that “never paid that much attention tot he history of ANY MA”, you’re the first to reply on a historical discussion thread

Now, if you paid much any attention to what I wrote, I was clear to state this is “Hung Fa Yi’s history” (as passed down orally thru our lineage), as well as “our position” on Tan Sau Ng. If you or somoene isn’t from my lineage, it might not be your history. That’s fine too.

BUT, most lineages do point back to Tan Sau Ng as part of their oral history. I went one step further and pointed to how this oral history about TSN, that most all WC lineages mention in their own history, ties back to our system training and knowledge. Is it ‘proof’? Nope. But it’s pretty interesting to me![/QUOTE]

“never paid much” does not equal " never paid any".
Know what I mean?

JPinAZ · January 20, 2012, 7:08pm

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1153794]“never paid much” does not equal " never paid any".
Know what I mean? ;)[/QUOTE]

Yup! Well then, if nothing else, I’m glad I caught your attention!
(you know, if we keep winking at each other, people might start to talk…)

sanjuro_ronin · January 20, 2012, 7:53pm

[QUOTE=JPinAZ;1153817]Yup! Well then, if nothing else, I’m glad I caught your attention!
(you know, if we keep winking at each other, people might start to talk…)[/QUOTE]

Perv.
LOL !
MA history is great and CAN really shed the light on a MA and why it came to be, the problem is when linage rears it’s ugly head and MA history ( or lack there of) is used to “legitimize” something that can ONLY be “legit” through combat and evidenced effectiveness.
When someone ( and this is not aimed at you) tries to use the history of a MA to claim the “true” insert MA here, then THAT is where MA history is abused and dry humped.

Lee_Chiang_Po · January 20, 2012, 7:54pm

Anything I have said here amounts to nothing more than hearsay. Words passed down from a time long ago. I guess at least 115 years ago now. From a man living close to those times and events. Accurate or not, I can’t really say. Do I believe it to be accurate? Pretty much. I have no reason not to believe it. But, what I said is all I claim to know. I couldn’t say about all the rest.

sanjuro_ronin · January 20, 2012, 8:02pm

And here is the thing, IF you were to find out tomorrow that this history was all wrong what difference would it make to your ability to use your WC?
None, none whatsoever.
The history of any MA is always fascinating but what a MA is all about is martial effectiveness and not history and while history can give you a better understanding of how a MA came to be ( the motivation behind its development) it doesn’t make anyone a better fighter or make the MA a better MA.

JPinAZ · January 20, 2012, 8:44pm

agreed, but really this goes without saying. No one here is saying that knowing the history of a MA makes you a better/worse fighter.
While WCK is a fighting art (Martial art), there are many other aspects one can look at besides just the fighting. Things like history, culture, philosophy - each of which can give us an insite as to why things are the way they are or how they came about. If you’re not interested in those things much, that’s cool too, but that’s what this particular thread is for.

So, while I do agree with you, I hope your point has been made and we can move on?
Do you have any comments regarding anything I did say or links I posted? (I did talk about some technical information as well btw since history doesn’t seem to be your thing)

Hendrik · January 20, 2012, 8:55pm

[QUOTE=sanjuro_ronin;1153824]And here is the thing, IF you were to find out tomorrow that this history was all wrong what difference would it make to your ability to use your WC?
None, none whatsoever.

The history of any MA is always fascinating but what a MA is all about is martial effectiveness and not history and while history can give you a better understanding of how a MA came to be ( the motivation behind its development) it doesn’t make anyone a better fighter or make the MA a better MA.[/QUOTE]

Good question.

my interest in the history of WCK particulary the creation of SLT the long set in the red boat era, prio to the Wong Wah Boh/ Leung Jan breaking up the one long set to the three sets , is to be able to know what type of training and development is in the art and what is the result could be expected.

WCK technology DNA issue is a serious issue because 20 years from today, WCK will be very diversify and evolve in different directions. so, if the technology DNA is not identify. that time will no longer has WCK.

For me, i respect WCK his-story in evey lineges, however, expecting the his-story is not going to align with what the art is. so, it is just a good story in the most time doing no good for the art.

as an example, within my lineage, there are those who believe SLT is a shao lin art and keep practice the SLT such as the one I shows in the utube with the rigid shao lin or hung gar or old hung kuen way. so, what is the consequence? the practice lost the snake reel and crane bow. it end up to be a rigid discrete karate like of art. it simply doesnt work well at all. so, holding on a wrong story is infact could screw up the art.

in fact, lots of things in these his-story doesnt make much sense, when compare with true chinese history and the tcma history for the past 400 years. but that is ok. because every one love to have their story as the best.

For example,
Ng Mui is just a nick name, there is no Shao lin got burn, there is no a group of monks develop WCK in shao lin, the Dna of the WCK sets are providing a different evidence to the Shao lin claim , the big guy in 1850 chinese history with evidence is CLF not WCK. and the list goes on.

also, tan sau cannot be the ulitimate even with the Shao Lin standard, Tan is infact partial. because Tan is Yang type. as all chinese knows the universe is made up of and Ying Yang pair. as I-Ching said, single Yang alone will not grow. So, saying Tan is the ultimate is just revealling the person doesnt understand Chinese philosophy and the art of Shao lin.

so, could we know a clear WCK three sets technological history today?
Sure, that is not that difficult at all observing and comparing DNA of the TCMA.

but that tell nothing on the anti Qing , rebel, and ect. also, the anti Qing, rebel…ect doesnt tell anything about the technology DNA.

one major issue is some one some one always love to link the anti Qing, rebel, red boat opera with the technology DNA. and it fails because anti Qing, rebel, red boat, stories, doesnt tell so where is the art called Siu Lien Tau comes from? it cannot come from the thin air. at least for the past 400 years in the Chinese TCMA history nothing comes from thin air but evolution.

Eric_H · January 20, 2012, 9:42pm

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1153832]Good question.