Rene,
Despite a few naive members of this forum, it is widely known in the WC community that you, Hendrick, and a few others from your WCML, are practically the same.
You want me to stop hijacking your threads??? Start really practicing what you preach by stopping your continual posting of inflamatory threads.
No one has a problem with you questioning any WC origin connections. The problem exists with your unecessary political BS, however well veiled.
Hi Joy,
1.The old water palm/punch and othere Fukien pics are indeed interesting Hendrik… and also seems to show the centerline principle. --------J
We can check about those centerline principle. the white crane has a transparent history records. By the way, about the inch power too.
2.Dragon style and tong long/southern mantis show some common close quarters southern themes but do not show
the body structures (knees, pelvis, chest) close to wing chun. ----J
Look at their head… .
But that is not the point.
The point is show the evidence to support shao lin believe. Which Shao Lin? where? who ? when? how? a record of 350 years atleast
Thesis #1 (Hendrik) seems closer to using a rifle than #2(the VTM
phalanx) which uses a scatter gun. ----J
I believe our ancestors dont lie to us. Ip Man knows what he is talking about.
Hendrik-best to ignore VTM posts-why mud wrestle with zealots.
Best to share your insights without engaging the group think folks. You give them more attention than is necessary. ---- J
I agree with you. It is behave similar to political people in political race. trying to smearing, twisting., discrediting … ect… all political behavior.
Originally posted by reneritchie
[B]
(2. I have as much a political connection to Hendrik as the VTM does (probably less at it’s possible they’re working together to stir up controversey and attention for each other like Timberlake and Janet Jackson). I give Hendrik a harder time than the VTM, thusfar he is simply more gracious in response). [/B]
This is just the first part.
It is similar to the card games, there are more evidents to come. if one can not open thier card then by default they dont have it.
I guess we can learn to do it in a sporty way, show the evidents from both thesis and let the public examine them.
I am political.
Sure, I do it for all the WCK people and the Next Generation if that is political. Let the historians write thier conclusion. My job is to reveal by phases all the informations I gather.
I am not against anyone.
I just pull the curtain. whatever there is there.
originally posted by hendrik
I agree with you. It is behave similar to political people in political race. trying to smearing, twisting., discrediting … ect… all political behavior
hendrik your history of bickering and making false claims is reaching legendary status as far as internet forum discussion goes!
When lacking facts, ad hominem?
Since when are all you HFY folks experts on Cho ga Wing Chun?
When asked for more facts for your position you resort to public attacks against Hendrik as cover?
If your positon was that strong why would you need to use such tactics of personal attacks?
The photo in the HFY book (implying it is a historical picture) is a publicity still from an HK movie, and the illustrations of early practitioners are illustrations by current students.
David, please remember we are not dealing with ‘HFY folks’, we are dealing with beginner students (or grand students, or great grand students) who are overzealous and have too much internet access for their own good.
I do not think we have any senior (over 10 years) ‘HFY folks’ on this thread with whom we may converse intelligently.
In that light, I think it safe to say if there were dozens and dozens of hyperactive Yip Man, Cho, or other beginners puffed full of their own newfound joy in WCK, we’d probably suffer similar behavior (and have, as we both know, over the last 10 years).
They simply do not understand. They have not gone through what we have as part of a diverse community. They don’t see it as a double standard that they can challenge the Ng Mui story but they get angry if anyone challenges Shaolin. They don’t see it as a related that they insult and disrespect others constantly and yet don’t get the warm fuzzy receptions they so crave in return. They don’t see how ludicrous it is to claim they all individually came to the same conclusions as members of the same group, but that everyone else from separate groups who came to different conclusions or hold different opinions are some bizarre sort of x-files-like conspiracy. They don’t yet know, and nothing anyone else can say or do will change that, only time.
So, IMHO, the rest of us can be far more productive if we just ignore the prattle, avoid the games, and focus exclusively on the core issues.
Is it okay to challenge the idea of a Shaolin -> Wing Chun connection?
Testing A Theory
I think that it is always a good thing to test (or challenge) a theory, be it a scientific, political, religious, or whatever else kind of view.
Challenging a theory (i.e. testing it to see if it hold up to scrutiny) is a win-win situation. There are two possible outcomes:
The theory holds up under even more pressure. Confidence in the theory improves and doubt diminishes.
The theory cracks under the pressure. Problems in the current theory become apparent, and the theory can be modified accordingly to reflect current evidence. Confidence may or may not improve, but doubt in the previous theory diminishes by virture of the previous theory being discarded.
I personally try to constantly challenge anything I believe or learn. Not to be confrontational or argumentative, but to keep myself honest. By doing so, I am always able to confidently state what I believe and why. Not why I am RIGHT, but why I hold that OPINION.
There is special consideration to be made when one is not speaking specifically of a scientific model in a vacuum (i.e. testing Relativity, or similar scientific models). As I’m sure everyone here is acutely aware of, when personality or culture is thrown into the mix, things get muddy and distorted. As such, it becomes necessary to utilize models of social study (or historical study) to continue on while keeping bias and personal opinion to a minimum (and I say to a minimum because even in science it can never be eliminated entirely).
This link leads to an article written a few years ago that details (VERY BRIEFLY AND VERY GENERALLY, before anyone decides to nit-pick for minor details) the basic outline for the VTM’s model for information gathering and evaluation. If anyone has questions about the model, or suggestions on how the model may be improved, please do not hesitate to PM or email me, or contact the VT Museum directly. Since this thread, and this forum, is not about the VTM, but is about WC, let’s try to keep it limited to those modes of contact and not a public debate.
Those of us who train HFY have an unofficial slogan: “Test the structure and remove the illusion.” I’m sure there are many variations on this theme out there, and that everyone who trains hold to a similar theory:
Retain what is useful and discard what is not.
Train what works.
Persue maximum efficiancy.
Etc., etc., etc. (do I hear Yul Brennar?)
As my Sisuk Jeremy Roadruck has said previously (not in these exact words, so this may just be my interpretation), the VTM’s current theory is a work in progress. When the VT Musuem was first created (as far as I am aware), the theory was that WC came from the martial nun Ng Mui. Information the VTM obtained caused them to re-evaluate that theory, and they did so accordingly. The theory has been modified and refined several times (with the information made available through the Chi Sim, Hung Fa Yi, and other lineages sharing their histories, systems, and training models).
Just as I try to test each new motion, principle, technique, structure to see if it holds up to real-world, real-time, real-energy resistance and challenge when I train my Kung Fu, the VTM tries to test its theory to see if it holds up to real-world, real-time, information. When they consistently fail to disprove the theory, their confidence in the theory grows stronger and their doubt diminishes. When something doesn’t seem to fit based on new, verifiable information, that aspect of the theory that doesn’t fit is discarded, and the theory is refined to fit in accodance with the collected data.
I have to say that I am in COMPLETE agreement with gilsinger’s earlier statement:
I personally hope that everyone’s Wing Chun serves them well.
I know that the 7+ years I have spent in the Yip Man System, and the 4+ years I have spent in the Hung Fa Yi system have served me extremely well, and I am forever grateful for everything that both systems have given me. I wholeheartedly wish this same degree of satisfaction and empowerment on everyone.
Now, can’t we all just get along? 
originally posted by planetwc
If your positon was that strong why would you need to use such tactics of personal attacks?
Responses to a post constitute attacks why are you attacking us now.
originally posted by rene ritchie
They don’t see how ludicrous it is to claim they all individually came to the same conclusions as members of the same group, but that everyone else from separate groups who came to different conclusions or hold different opinions are some bizarre sort of x-files-like conspiracy.
LOL, Rene, that was precious
Wow this thread got crazy. First of all, I think that there are obvious similarities from white crane, venomus snake, mantis, in wing chun.
A lot of the circling motions in wing chun look similar to crane techniques, along with some elbow techniques. A lot of finger strikes and palm chops look similar to snake boxing. Kicks and some foot work look similar to southern mantis style.
However, A LOT OF SYSTEMS borrowed similar techniques. The history of wing chun is a myth. No one really knows what the exact history is.
This is what I have read and heard from many different sifus and masters of wing chun.
Ng Mui was really a man disguised as a woman. This would support the idea that women were not allowed to train with men in a shaolin temple. Also, during this time period shaolin monks were killed on sight by the manchurians, so it can be inferred that Ng Mui was in disguise for the purpose of hiding. This is one theory, with some research behind it supporting it. Is it ture, hell if I know.
Since Wing Chun is such an optimized combat system, one can learn to fight from it within 6 months to one year of training. During the whole secret society and rebellion to restore the ming dynasty, it was believed wing chun was taught to small villiages to make make-shift soldiers who could fight a rebellion in 6 months. So, it is possible that Yim Wing Chun was taught this style, but perhaps not on the only purpose to defend herself against a local bully gangster. Perhaps her family was part of the rebels wanting to restore the ming dynasty? Since it was suppose to be secret only to those loyal to the mings perhaps the romantic story was created to lower suspicions???
If you read the VTM article then you know that some believe that Yim Wing Chun was a code name to keep the seceret kung fu system developed from the shaolin temples. That Yim Wing Chun did not really exist. It was from the always spring time temple. Again there is evidence to support this.
The 5 elders, did they exist? Were they another code? Well I don’t think anyone has ever proved or disproved their existance. We do know the temple was burned down, but what happened after that? There is a lot of evidence referring to the red boat (or red junk) opera. Several lineages mention that wing chun practioners were involved in this.
A similar thing happened to some people I know. Some from one lineage, and some from another argued and argued politics and which system was better, and blah blah blah. I chose not to get involved is such an argument because people got jaded, and blinded from what really mattered. Do you honestly think that your great great great great grand master really cares about preserving the exact history of the lineage, or would they rather you advance the art and keep on passing it down? Now bridges were burned and bonds were broken over this and now if I were to contact one of these other lineage people to train with them, they would not give me the time of day. Not because I argued but because of my lineage, and some people that train with me were involved in the argument. That kind of egotistical elitism is not what our founding fathers (or mothers) of Wing Chun Kuen wanted.
I can’t remember who posted this, I think it might have been Joy, or kathy (sorry can’t remember). They reffered to an article about an egineering company that tried to recreate the wright brothers first flight. With all of our advanced technology in aerospace, aviation, aerodynamics, engineering, etc. we COULD NOT recreate the first flight of the Wright brothers. Pretty crazy huh? Why try to reinvent the wheel based off some old sayings, philosphies, concepts, and history. We should learn from one another. If I were to cross train in HFY system after learning Yip Man for many years would it improve my wing chun? More than likely, yes it would.
So, if we want to discuss possible histories of wing chun then lets do it. Its interesting I agree. All of the different lineages are wing chun, and all of them have similarities. It looks to me like tons of modern systems borrowed from white crane, not just wing chun. If we are going to bicker and argue and accuse someone of “trash talking” my lineage or my school, then we are not advancing the art. We are stuck in the past and not gaining anything from it.
To answer the original question, was the VTM disrepectful? No, they are open to corrections and other versions if you have data to back it up. So if you disagree write your thesis on the history of WCK.
Will we ever know the true history of WCK? Ask yourself if it really matters?
Hey Taltos, nice to see you posting.
Originally posted by Jim Roselando
[B]Hello David,
What about the White Crane people? Why do they lay claim to creating Japanese arts and not Wing Chun?
The lay claim to both! White Crane and its San Chin set show a clear connection to the Okinawan arts and then of course the Japanese which stem from the Okinawan’s. Then you can also see that they, the White Crane people, list Wing Chun as a relative of their art. … …
Just some thoughts!
Gotta walk!
hehe [/B]
Hello Jim, thanks for the interest and sharing. You are correct regarding the Okinawan and Japanese arts. White Crane is credited heavily with aiding in their creation. However, even as you just stated, many times it has been said that Wing Chun and Southern White Crane are related. Therein lies the difference.
-David
Thank you Gangsterfist for your kind and thoughtful words.
Planet WC,
The historical pictures you are referring to actually were provided by the Chinese Wing Chun Museum, and the Chinese government after they uncovered the Hung Fa Ting.
I suggest spending less time in the movies. Those of us in the Bay Area are particularly tired of this kind of nonsense being posted by some of the Ken Chung/Ben Durr student camp.
Rene,
I actually started my WC training in 1984. And I’ve been with HFY since before we went public. Yet still, I would never try to display myself as some self-proclaimed WC authority the way you do. But that is probably due to our different WC backgrounds isn’t it???
This thread of yours is more suitable for your WCML. Posting your backhanded political crap on any other truly public forum is likely to be received worse than here. But you already know that don’t you.
Hey David!
Hello Jim, thanks for the interest and sharing.
Thats what we are all here for!
You are correct regarding the Okinawan and Japanese arts. White Crane is credited heavily with aiding in their creation.
Indeed
However, even as you just stated, many times it has been said that Wing Chun and Southern White Crane are related. Therein lies the difference.
Well, maybe I should have wrote that better. Most list WC as an off-shoot of White Crane. Yang JM even wrote in his “Shaolin White Crane” book that Wing Chun was a sub-branch of White Crane. Most Crane folk acknowledge this or “claim” our roots come from them.
A few of the things that stand out to me versus the other south fist would be body positioning. While Mantis, Dragon, Whitebrow etc. all maintain the forward hardbow posture I can see that the Crane lines up just like we do with the Bai He and K1 on the same line. We are just more compact/softer. Crane, like many arts, pull up their power and gather/release thru waist/spine/chest fa jin. Same goes for my Leung Jan Wing Chun and others (please lets not bicker over this body usage in WC) (if anyone wants to discuss it, please start a new thread). Crane sets were based on Ging patterns. Same goes for WC. 98% of all WC lineage (Yip, Yuen, Cho, Koo Lo, etc) state Ng Mui as the source. Yang Jwing Ming and others state Fang Chi Niang was the root. White Crane was obviously around or practiced by the Red Boat people so?? Lots of stuff to think about and talk about.
Ok. If Wing Chun is not from Crane then which art (or arts) were part of its birth/roots?
Gotta walk,
I think a fair answer to your question(s) is that it will be objective, from the VTM’s point of view, since it is their seminar, and they have a great familiarity with everything they will be introducing. Since you do not agree with them, you will not consider it objective. It is possible that the VTM might not be able to flick a lightswitch or shovel snow from it’s front step without it being portrayed in a negative light by certain people, but I’m sure that they will continue to do what they feel is right, and there will always be those that disagree.
Gilsinger,
I appreciate your patience and conciliatory tone.
I put it to you, though, that the VT Museum has put its cards on the table in the book detailing its political stance. The views stated therein about “Popular Wing Chun”, Bruce Lee, other historians etc. can hardly be defended as the results of rigorous research or scholarship. They are political opinions, pure and simple. It beggars belief that their students can turn inquisitor regarding political agenda when their seniors are just as bad as any accusee.
I am sure that Benny and Richard turn on lights and shovel snow like anyone else does, and they are kind to children, small animals, their wives and students, etc.
However, IMO, what they wrote in the book has compromised their credibility when it comes to treating objectively WC lineages other than those to which they have hitched their current wagon.
Still, they’re not the first (look at William Cheung and the Trad/Mod controversy - pity Benny and Richard couldn’t learn any lessons from history, despite their alleged avid studies thereof) and are unlikely to be the last.
As one of my teachers said to me once, “only a fool listens to the braying of the a$$”. Like many others on this forum, and Benny and Richard, and William Cheung, I’ve on occasion been both fool and a$$, and will try in future to treat this subject as the storm in a teacup that it actually is.
Hey Jim! “Most Crane folk acknowledge this or “claim” our roots come from them.” - J.R
We must agree to disagree on this point. Most White Crane people very openly acknowledge the role White Crane played in the development of Okanawin and Japanese arts. However, one is hard pressed to find White Crane people who will make the same claim of White Crane being the roots of Wing Chun.
“Crane sets were based on Ging patterns.” - J.R
Hmmm ?? Which one of the more than 80 sets in particular?? It is well documented that the White Crane sets were designed to teach application. The second half of the forms represent the “counters” to applications found in the first half. This holds true for both the empty hand and weapons forms.
“Same goes for WC.” - J.R
Really? Most say that SLT, CK, BJ are an “encyclopedia” of techniques or an expression of the concepts and priciples of which WC is based. Interesting. Are Ging patterns the focus of Leung Jan Wing Chun forms?
"98% of all WC lineage (Yip, Yuen, Cho, Koo Lo, etc) state Ng Mui as the source. Yang Jwing Ming and others state Fang Chi Niang was the root. " - J.R
Chu Ga Tong Long also claims their art was founded by a female, Leow Fah Chih Koo and surprise she was a Shaolin monk escaping from the burning southern temple. So just because both have female heroines, doesn’t point to any definitive link.
“Ok. If Wing Chun is not from Crane then which art (or arts) were part of its birth/roots?” - J.R
Only our Shaolin ancestors know. 
-David
Chu Ga Tong Long also claims their art was founded by a female, Leow Fah Chih Koo and surprise she was a Shaolin monk escaping from the burning southern temple. So just because both have female heroines, doesn’t point to any definitive link.
Jim, David,
Thanks for the info interesting 3 different stories Ng Mui, Fang Chi Niang and now Leow Fah Chih Koo all referencing one shaolin.
Originally posted by anerlich
[B]
Gilsinger,
I appreciate your patience and conciliatory tone.
[/B]
anerlich,
I also appreciate the effort to discuss even these controversial matters with an air of goodwill. I am not charged to speak on behalf of HFY, although I am a student, and a person who values harmony.
If the writers of Mastering Kung Fu have made claims that have offended you, I’m not going to tell you that you’re right or wrong to feel offended. The fact is, you’re offended. I can only hope that everyone considers everyone else’s position as best they can, and that in the future everyone will understand each other better.
Meanwhile, I’m just a student. I just keep going to class.
The mudslinging is just non-productive. Going nowhere. I get no thrill from being angry and marvelling at the sharpness of my own tongue, so I tend not to go that route. I know that this bickering goes back a long way, which makes it difficult to stop for all who are involved in it.
Hopefully with more diplomacy in these discussions, there could actually be some progress in the right direction. Pushing people’s buttons and spitting on their loyalties is the wrong direction.
Take care,
-jess
THINK ABOUT THIS…
Listen…instead of endless arguments about historical/lineage/my wc is better than your wc (no matter how disguised)…because mine comes directly from Shaolin - and yours doesn’t - and I have this and that wonderful “thing” in my system - that you don’t have…and you’re a hyocrite and I’m not…
Instead of all of this ENDLESS crap that goes on ad infinitum, and ad nauseum…
How about this - as a means of channelling the “debate” to a much more constructive outlet - where actions will speak INFINITELY louder than words or questionable “history” books…
an annual, all-wing chun FIGHTING tournament.
Not a forms demo…not a chi sao demo or competition…not a weapons demo…not hour-and-a half lectures about the history and principles of one’s own version of the art…
But 4 weight divisions:
Lightweight…130-149 lbs.
Middleweight…150-169 lbs.
Lightheavyweight…170-189 lbs.
Heavyweight…190 lbs. and above
Each fight is one three-minute round. Contestants will use very light MMA-type gloves (wherein much of the fingers are exposed).
They will also wear knee pads - as kicks to the legs while wearing an agreed upon lightweight shoe or sneaker will be allowed. No strikes/kicks to the groin are allowed…and elbows only to the body. No strikes or kicks allowed to the back or top of the head.
And headgear that includes a cage surrouding the face (a hockey-mask cage is the best…vision is not really impaired, and it gives complete protection for the face).
Sweeps, throws, and takedowns will be allowed…but the fighters will then be reset in the standing position - and extra points given to the man who performed the move.
Three judges - the referee and two others who stand at each end of the mat…the size of which is to be mutually determined. (Two judges would aloow for too many “draws”.
Judges will be instructed to allow for one point to be awarded for each blow struck that “seems solid”. Two points for the takedown.
Only one student from ANY GIVEN LINEAGE can participate in EACH of the four weight divisions…ie…
Only one per weight division representing TWC,HFY, YKS, Leung Ting, Emin Boztepe, Moy Yat, Wong Shun Leung, etc…
I realize this allows more Yip Man lineage participants than non-Yip Man…but I really don’t see any other fair way to do it given all the different schools that trace their roots back to one student or another of Yip Man…
I am NOT volunteering myself to run such an event here in NYC - I have no time to organize such a thing…but I will certainly be willing to travel and bring some of my students along.
NOW…HERE’S POSSIBLY THE BIGGEST THING OF ALL TO CONSIDER…
in terms of fairness and objectivity…We pay some mutually agreed upon KARATE instructors to organize and run the event…including, of course…acting as referees and judges.
Now before anyone scoffs at this last point…keep in mind that Karate people have been doing this kind of thing for MANY decades…their have the know-how and experience to make it work.
THIS WAS THE SATURDAY PROGRAM.
On Sunday…only the shools from which the four winners came from will be allowed to put on a 45 minute demo (forms, chi sao, talk, whatever)…with a 15 minute break in-between each demo.
This kind of thing would go a long way toward shutting up alot of BULLSH#T talk…
NOW PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO WALK…THE WALK.
Wing Chun Tourney
This is supposed to be a Wing Chun tourney and you’re suggesting gloves. Nix the gloves.
How about holding it in Macao?
Regards,
Grendel:
You want to up the ante because you’re serious or because you want to dynamite the whole idea ?
And one more thing…Macao !!!