Are Yik Kam of Cho family Wing Chun and Dai Fa Min Kam of Chi Sim Weng Chun the same person ? This is part 2 of a Wong Kiew Kitt Article on Cho family Wing Chun . I know Wong Kiew Kitt wrote a book on Cho Family Wing Chun but said he will not publish it on the market for sale in bookstores . Hendrik are you ever going to write a book on Cho Family Wing Chun like Rene did on the Yuen Kay San Wing Chun Family Wing Chun ?
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/readings/historical/cho_wong02.html
Re: Is Yik Kam of Cho Family Wing Chun also Dai Fa Min Kam of Chi Sim Weng Chun ?
Originally posted by FIRE HAWK
Hendrik are you ever going to write a book on Cho Family Wing Chun like Rene did on the Yuen Kay San Wing Chun Family Wing Chun ?
Cho Hong-Choy had written a book and letters including the family tree and… So, i don’t have to write one but just follow what my sifu wrote.
As for how others write thier book that is fine with me.
it is a free world certainly everyone has thier right to express themselves.
Hendrik/Phenix
So you no longer plan to actually write a book, you mentioned about a year and a 1/2 ago that you were planning to release one???
Sheldon
No. They are two separate people who played separate roles in the opera (Yik Kam was the Cheung Tan, Dai Fa Min Kam was the Mo Jing) and had separate students. While the word “Kam” may be confusing and seem similar in English, the two actually use different characters for their names (like Weng and Wing are different characters).
Re: Hendrik/Phenix
Originally posted by Geezer
[B]So you no longer plan to actually write a book, you mentioned about a year and a 1/2 ago that you were planning to release one???
Sheldon [/B]
Why confused?
the chinese one is always there. The english one hmmm someone needs to transtlate and decide on how much to release out, right?
Looks like I am going to release some in WWW.Wingchunkuen.com
since it is a neutral site and I don’t need coloring.
Hendrik/Phenix
Hendrik/Phenix Wrote>
Why confused?
Because you told veryone that you would be releasing one soon???
Hendrik/Phenix Wrote>
the chinese one is always there.
Maybe…hmmmmm,this might be why I’m confused, this is all new to me…so you have no intentions of releasing a book…Right:confused:
Hendrik/Phenix Wrote>
The english one hmmm someone needs to transtlate and decide on how much to release out
I thought you told everyone you had already made plans to release it:confused: now this has got me real confused;)
Sheldon
P.S.So no book plans in English…like ever, Right???
Re: Hendrik/Phenix
Originally posted by Geezer
[B]
Sheldon..
P.S.So no book plans in English…like ever, Right??? [/B]
ha ha ha, you are from england? re read my post on top.
My english is no good that’s why I need Rene’s help. If seems that yours is as bad as mind. so you too need Rene’s help.
well, there are serveral copy in chinese release to people in this forum already.
But then, since your english is no good why release one in english ? you can’t comprehend it right?
Sheldon,
I really can not understand your motives, intentions, rationalization, or any thing else. It seems all your doing is stiring up you-know-what. Obviously his answer is very clear, dispite your not liking the answer. As he said, a book was already published. If you want info on Cho Family wing chun, go buy it. I will when I can find it.
By the way, on another post, which is now closed, you pointed out a small group of people on Rene’s web site and marganalized the others. If you look carefully, you will see others POV. It seems like your point data to suit your POV. Which is similar to what your doing here. Why would Hendrik write a book? No one, except for a small forest of people, are interested in it. Just as some are not to eager to divulge their lineage, others may not be to eager to share with those that are hostile and receptive. Seems to me people want the info so they can try to attack it. LOL. I too would gaurd it and not release it. I am glad that he has release what he has. I am very disheartened that a small group of people did not enjoy what he offered and probably caused the rest of us to be left out of good info. How can people be serious about the history of wing chun when they attack and deny some ones lineage without even hearing much about it. LOL. I see lots of hypocracy from various people.
Your turn to ignore the real questions and to distort or isolate one or two select comments in an effort to change the subject. Tom
Hi Tom,
I actually do present a wide range of views on my site, including those which do not agree with my own thoughts (even have one on WCK coming from Shaolin!). All I ask is that they be non-political and reasonably well supported (not just sifu sez).
I personally believe that we need differing points of view on the topic, and that it only benefits us all to have them.
What I do find interesting, however, is that while some may accuse people who disagree with them as being in some form of collusion, it’s rediculous on its face. Unlike they, who do belong to the same school/political group, most of the people disagreeing come from completely different backgrounds, live in different countries, and have very different views on most other subjects. Of course, its easier to make up stories like that than reflect for a moment to see if widespread, diverse, and well articulated disagreements could be meritorious. Oh well, maybe in 5 years or so they’ll be disagreeing too, and a new generation will be accusing them of some phantom conspiracy! LOL!
BTW- While Hendrik has never said he was working on a Cho Ga book, he has mentioned, off and on, working on publishing his Kuen Kuit in English (some of which he’s graciously posted here already), so while Grandmaster Cho Hung-Choi’s book may be near impossible to find if you weren’t his direct disciple, hopefully that we can all look forward to.
(And I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees that some people complain and whine on end, yet refuse to share about their own lineages, or what their own sifu’s have done to modify their lineages, etc. etc. I guess for some its a one way street).
tparkerfo
tparkerkfo Wrote>
I really can not understand your motives, intentions, rationalization, or any thing else.
I didn’t know “YOU” were supposed to understand a question I put to someone else, is this a case(again) of you posting an answer about a subject you have no knowledge of:confused:
tparkerfo Wrote>
As he said, a book was already published.
Oh…the one in Chinese, yes I did see that, but you probably over looked where I asked about the book in ENGLISH.
The same one I remember Hendrik publicly advising everyone about, that was being published soon;)
tparkerfo Wrote>
If you want info on Cho Family wing chun, go buy it. I will when I can find it.
Let me know when you find the one in ENGLISH;)
tparkerfo Wrote>
on another post, which is now closed, you pointed out a small group of people on Rene’s web site and marganalized the others. If you look carefully, you will see others
Did “you” see on that closed thread where I referenced the MAJORITY of published articles, also mentioning that there were others as well:confused:
tparkerfo Wrote>
Why would Hendrik write a book?
I think you need to ask him that, I’m just repeating what he advised everyone about and I do think I would be interested;)
tparkerfo Wrote>
No one, except for a small forest of people, are interested in it.
I’m sure Hendrik appreciates that little comment, am I now twisting what you wrote???
tparkerfo Wrote>
Seems to me people want the info so they can try to attack it.
Is this something you know about first hand???
tparkerfo Wrote>
Your turn to ignore the real questions and to distort or isolate one or two select comments in an effort to change the subject.
I have enough faith in you that you will see what ever is written as being distorted or isolated;)
Sheldon:D
Rene,
I credit you for your mostly unbiased nature and your desire to spread and share the art of wing chun. You were one of the first “major” web sites around back in 95 or so when I got out of the army and decided to study wing chun. It is amazing how much flack you get with the dedication you put in. Are you biased. I would say so. Unfortunatly people can not see it and misplace it else where. Your bias is against unfactual data. LOL. It is also funny that “our” forrest is not a small one at all, but a rather large one representing many different lineages. But the ones that discredit are all tied to the same little forrest (Siu Lam-LOL). I just want to thank you for putting up the works your do and hope it continues.
Sheldon,
I wasn’t aware this was “Sheldon’s board”, and that I had to becareful on what I posted comments to. Do I have knowledge about Cho Wing Chun? Not much. But unlike some, I atleast have met the guy, touched his hands, held a decent conversation, and consider him as close to a friend as I can a person I have had little contact with. I have some knowledge of Cho and have seen it. I think that is a little bit more than you have at the moment, which I would think makes me a little more qualified than you on the topic. LOL. Though I admit I am NOT qualified at all.
Yes I guess the book may not be in english. I have may books not in english in my library. I would suggest that if you really want to know, get the book and learn Chinese. Pay to have some one translate it. Oh wait, last we talked I think you said you knew some one who can do that. Though there were some issues in understanding the wing/weng chracters. LOL. So I probably wouldn’t trust them either.
Yeah I saw your words and you did mention the others. However, your intent was that only a small section of people are published on that site, and that Rene may have thrown a bone to the other side. Well, maybe it is that those people submited articles. The VTM and other people have there own place to publish, so why do it through Rene? I doubt he rejected any that were submited. Keep in mind that Rene helped to publicize different branches of wing chun more than any other single person. Gee Shim web site is hosted by him. He puts out info for Yuen Kay San. He gives a forum for the Cho Family. He hosted a site for Gualo wing chun as well. Rene has done a fine job and I wish more people can be as constructive as he is. The VTM is doing OK, though I think they can do better.
You seem to suggest that I attack people or stories? I would be interested in know why you think that. Yes I question, But I do not seek info out so I can attack it. I have my own beliefs on certain topics. I would like people to understand there are issues with the tradition stories. If they pass them off as factual, then I will let them know it is not factual. But I never attack the person nor do I ever attack the art itself. Each art has merit and stands on its own regardless of its history. But please, enlighten me about my attacks as I wish to change my habbits.
Again, your turn to extract, twist, parse, ignore, and deflect my comments.
Tom
Sheldon,
Since you have come back on this board you have highjacked and destroyed two adult threads that were going. One was closed and now this one is in the toilet. If you want to find out some information then post a thread and “maybe” it will get answered. If it doesn’t then that is probally because of how you present yourself on this forum.
No traditional sifu would give you an answer.
So, why dont you start a new thread and stop the Rene/Hendrik/Chu etc. versus (attacking basically) approach (as even tho you think thats what they are doing any adult can notice thats not the case) as what they discuss has done nothing but good for the WCK community. Rene’s site has been helping share a variety of lineages info. for a long time now. Not one particular lineage or theory but a host of them. Others are now following his/their lead which is good.
None of these conversations had anything to do with lineage or any particular group. It had to do with discussing the theories of why WC was Shaolin or not and it also had to do with Hung Mun etc.. Then! The people that had the most to talk about with this thread happened to be Savi, David, Hendrik, Me, Tom, Rene, etc.. So, why dont you add something constructive to the topics and we can all discuss like mature people do. Why do you feel WC is from a secret high level Shaolin? Why do you feel WC body mechanis are Shaolin? Why do you feel WC is quicker to make use of than Shaolin? Why do you feel the art no longer makes use of the Shaolin numerology? Etc. Etc.
Regards,
tparkerfo
Seeing as most anything I repsond to will be deleted I will tread carefully;)
tparkerfo Wrote>
I wasn’t aware this was “Sheldon’s board”,
No it is not my board and I have never given anyone the impression it was:confused:
tparkerfo Wrote>
and that I had to becareful on what I posted comments to
No…it would help tremendously if you had some insight or knowledge of the subjects that questions are asked;)
tparkerfo Wrote>
Do I have knowledge about Cho Wing Chun? Not much.
Thank You!!!
tparker Wrote>
But unlike some, I atleast have met the guy, touched his hands, held a decent conversation
tparkerfo…unfortunately, I do not feel you are qualified enough to give answers to the questions ask of Hendrik. On the other hand, Rene is!!!
tparkerfo Wrote>
I would think makes me a little more qualified than you on the topic. LOL. Though I admit I am NOT qualified at all.
tparkerfo…as referenced above, I do not see that you are qualified with the little experience you have had to answer my questions put to Hendrik!!!
Now to avoid this being deleted…I would prefer that you do not respond to this;)
Sheldon
Hi Sheldon,
I would prefer you didn’t reply to many things to 
You could get a lot more information from people if you treated them with respect and listened to what they had to say. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with them. But treat them respectfully. To my knowledge, I have not seen any of the people you attack treat others with disrespect. Occasionaly people lose their tempers, but on the whole there is respect with the disagreement. You show a serious lack of respect. I think that may be part of why people ignore you and don’t supply you with answers.
and good way to avoid all my comments and pick out the things YOU wanted to highlight. LOL.
now, that should officialy kill this thread. LOL
Tom
tparkerfo
tparkerfo Wrote>
To my knowledge, I have not seen any of the people you attack treat others with disrespect.
Maybe you should open your eyes tparkerfo, I think maybe…now “YOU” are taking sides???
tparkerfo Wrote>
You show a serious lack of respect.
Just out of curiosity…do you remember your very first post you directed at me on the WCML??? You seem to show allot of bias, then deny it???
I only show disrespect as “YOU” put it, to the people that have no idea what it means!!!
Atleast I’m open about who I show my allegence too!!!
Sheldon
P.S.Seeing as we have travelled well off subject why don’t you send me a PM, if you have any other question you wish to ask.
I will answer them to the best of my ability;)
Hello Sheldon and Tom,
A couple of points and then we can try to get back on track!
Tom has made contributions with his own personal experience and his own thoughts regarding the different topics that have been out lately. He is not a Cho member but speaks honestly about what he has experienced and that is the most important thing to make a Discussion Board work. I see that as a mature approach to discussion rather than “taking sides”. So! Just because he (based on his reading and thinking and experience) has decided to agree with some of the more progressives views he is now taking sides? Funny. I thougth he was a Yip guy and Hung Gar guy. Taking sides with a Yuen guy and Cho guy would not be normally P.C..
You mentioned “Allegence”! Thats great to know! Now, can you explain some of the details on which you used to make your “Allegence” to whom ever you are “Sided” with? Once again! What makes you believe WC is Shaolin or from Shaolin? How do you feel they switched from the Hard Bow to the Yin Sun approach of WC? Why did they change the traditional numerology to WC SLT etc.? What is it that you feel is the deciding knowledge you have read that makes you a die hard believer in what ever you believe in? Any contributions to the discussion would be appreciated.
Now! My Allegence is to WCK and WCK knowledge. I also have Allegence to my Kung Fu family but just because they say WC is from Ng Mui that doesnt mean I have to believe the old fables. As a matter of fact you want to know what they say? Ok! They say WC is better than Shaolin since its younger! Its up to us to see what is more likely rather than less likely and first me must have some information to present or discuss so the conversations can continue in an adult way.
Lets drop the BS (and the battles of the clicks) and discuss good stuff. Technical info. etc..
Regards,
please do not speak for all WCK!
Hello Jim, Sheldon and Tom,
Jim wrote:
<snip>Why did they change the traditional numerology to WC SLT etc.? What is it that you feel is the deciding knowledge you have read that makes you a die hard believer in what ever you believe in? Any contributions to the discussion would be appreciated.
Jim please do not speak for all WCK! When you say SLT etc… That alone tells me that you have yet to see and understand the HFY’s SNT and SLT. I think when we look at Chi Sim WCK we also cannot speak in the same terms such as “SLT”. So I can only say at this point maybe the WCK that you have been exposed to does not reflect what you refer to as “Traditional numerology”. As a matter of fact you will find that with both Chi sim and HFY the roots in Chan alone will place both systems identity well with in Shaolin. Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered.
<snip>Now! My Allegence is to WCK and WCK knowledge. I also have Allegence to my Kung Fu family but just because they say WC is from Ng Mui that doesnt mean I have to believe the old fables. As a matter of fact you want to know what they say? Ok! They say WC is better than Shaolin since its younger! Its up to us to see what is more likely rather than less likely and first me must have some information to present or discuss so the conversations can continue in an adult way.
I agree with your statement here however I have to say that we must first have enough information to make such calls. I can see where alot of assumptions are being made. As a museum member I find that it is not a good idea to assume that just becuase we use the same words and even simular body positions (at first look) that we are speaking the same language. Becuase more often then not each system has a very different idea of what is being said. I cannot say that without face to face interaction that I’m sure we are speaking the same language. I have even seen a few cases with face to face interaction the person still assumed he/she already knew what was being said and missed the entire point. So even with face to face the person has to be ready. I’m not saying that you’re ready or not. I hope to maybe meet face to face and offer you interaction a experience as a better frame of reference. I hope this helps the thread along. good day gents!
Chango (saat geng sau)
Re: please do not speak for all WCK!
Originally posted by Chango
[B]
Jim please do not speak for all WCK! When you say SLT etc… That alone tells me that you have yet to see and understand the HFY’s SNT and SLT. I think when we look at Chi Sim WCK we also cannot speak in the same terms such as “SLT”. So I can only say at this point maybe the WCK that you have been exposed to does not reflect what you refer to as “Traditional numerology”. As a matter of fact you will find that with both Chi sim and HFY the roots in Chan alone will place both systems identity well with in Shaolin. Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered.
[/B]
Hi Chango,
In my humble opinion,
You have a great point. however, what you said also will apply to both party.
I have seen HFY’s set and art at the friendship seminal and Robert Chu’s place. I have seen Andreas Sam Bai Fut and art in his seminal.
You can be right, Chi Sim and HFY might be belongs to the same group originate from Shao Lin.
and YSK, Koo Loo, Yik Kam, Ip Man…belong to a different group in the red junk. Incidentally, the YSK, Koo Loo, Yik Kam or Cho lineages are converging even they didn’t meet and discuss like in this forum since late 1800s.
But that doesn’t mean HFY and Chisim are subject to the same group of art.
HFY and Chisim might have a great points. Which I am open to learn about and respect.
However, no one can claim who is older or more original then who.
Such as Benny and Richard’s article in Kungfu magazine. Or Sub Yat Sau is the same with Yik Kam SLT set. Any claim like that has to be back up by factual evidents. In term of History, Kuen Kuit, Kuen Po, legacy code, and family tree which is traceable.
Similarly,
I would like to ask The same question to you and all the VTM researchers as you ask Jim.
Have Benny or Richard or even Garret Gee … has ever saw Yik Kam’s Kuen Po, Kuen Kuit, legacy code… to make such claim in the Kungfu maganize for Cho family and Yik Kam’s art?
It will be great for you to show your full Kuen Po, lineage legacy of the set and also the legacy of Chan transmission.
so we all can learn and understand more about your system. and what is the different and the reason of the existing of both SLT and SNT. I don’t belive that is only one truth. But to accept a truth one needs factual evidents.
in addition, you say "Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered. "
Try me. I am a Chan Buddist and a disciple of Shao Lin. I will be reasonable.
You question my shao lin knowledge before..
This is my sigong of one Shao Lin art.
http://www.geocities.com/ong_mingthong/Sik_KoSum.html
my sifu is late buddisht monk Ven. Fa Chan of Medan Indonesia.
http://members.lycos.nl/saolim/lifestory_gaocan.html
As a conclusion, the main point of my post is to blind tests the system since everyone love to do things scientificly these days.
Certainly, I hope people response with my post in an adult maner otherwise, it is not a discussion but a side taking act. I have never against Shao Lin because I am also shao Lin disciple.
Hey Chango!
Good to speak with you!
Jim please do not speak for all WCK!
I dont. I speak of my experience and thoughts. Never claimed to speak for all WCK.
When you say SLT etc… That alone tells me that you have yet to see and understand the HFY’s SNT and SLT.
I have seen the HFY SLT. Do I understand it? I would say no since i have never studied it but this is not about HFY or any particular lineage. It just happens to be that the HFY guys are the only ones defending the debate at this point on the board.
I think when we look at Chi Sim WCK we also cannot speak in the same terms such as “SLT”.
I never do. I regard them as something different from WCK. JR
So I can only say at this point maybe the WCK that you have been exposed to does not reflect what you refer to as “Traditional numerology”.
Perhaps you dont understand what I am saying! South fist (not eclectic versions) make use of 3, 18, 108 etc. as their form titles. Even the Okinwan arts make use of this. What I am saying is why do people feel WC does not make use of it? While the number three may be found in the WC art it is not thought of in the same way as the so-called south Shaolin.
As a matter of fact you will find that with both Chi sim and HFY the roots in Chan alone will place both systems identity well with in Shaolin.
I can see from reading the different histories that this is what is stated but just because someone says its Shaolin/Chan it does not mean one has to agree without hearing some stylistic, structural, etc. reasoning for the development/similarity. Yet! Once again! You guys are not the only ones who have claimed Shaolin over the years so it has nothing to do with your lineage but more the storiesinfo. out there.
Keep in mind like alot of Chan concepts not everyone is ready to understand or except what is offered.
That would be the same for others theories/research.
I agree with your statement here however I have to say that we must first have enough information to make such calls.
I agree with you and this is why we have all been sharing and discussing different information regarding structural similarities, numerology, hard bow versus Yin Sun, forms patterns, etc. to come up with some links etc..
I can see where alot of assumptions are being made.
Everyone assumes lots of stuff and that is why we are all here to share info. and discuss information. That way we can find out some theories as to why, when, etc..
As a museum member I find that it is not a good idea to assume that just becuase we use the same words and even simular body positions (at first look) that we are speaking the same language. Becuase more often then not each system has a very different idea of what is being said.
Totally agree! That is why we are here to discuss and compare. Anyhow, thats all we can do on a discussion board.
I cannot say that without face to face interaction that I’m sure we are speaking the same language.
True but we are on a discussion board and we can all discuss our info..
I have even seen a few cases with face to face interaction the person still assumed he/she already knew what was being said and missed the entire point.
I see this a lot and with a lot of points.
So even with face to face the person has to be ready. I’m not saying that you’re ready or not.
I am a very open person to loads of info/ways. Then I do my own homework with the info. I have recieved over the years. I dont always agree and sometimes others dont always agree with my thoughts. Thats the beauty of life.
I hope to maybe meet face to face and offer you interaction a experience as a better frame of reference. I hope this helps the thread along. good day gents!
I hope to meet someday. Get more info. and think more about it but for now we must use this board as our platform for discussion. Look forward to more chats.
BTW: I am not arguing with any lineage. I am not attacking any lineage. I dont care about lineage. To be honest! The lineage does not matter to me so please dont take this as a HFY or Jee Shim attack. It has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the age old belief about Shaolin or not. It has to do with the age old belief that WC was this quicky system rather than the long winded systems. It has to do with understanding how and why the arts went from a lead leg forward to slight pigeon toe not one in front. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Perhaps we can continue this discussion and share more thoughts and views now that the topic is open again. I will start the thread up agian as this thread is different going down the wrong road from its original topic of is Yik Kam the same Kam is Dai Kam etc.. Look forward to more chats!
Regards,
Hello Chango,
I don’t think Jim is speaking for all wing chun. I think we all have a tendency to make apparently large claims, but in reality it is limited to our experience. Heck, even the masters can not speak of all wing chun. LOL.
In any case, I do not think wing chun came from shaolin for many reasons. When I say that, I mean fully intact or a majority of it. I have no doubt that there is SOME shaolin influence in it somewhere. Now, for Gee Shim and HFY. Those are different arts and as far as I am concerned, can come from shaolin 100%. I would not question that. Gee Shim is not the same as what I do. And if HFY claims them as a root, then that is fine. There are stories of other arts being on the red boats as well. I think Weng Chun is one. This, I beleive is a seperate distinct art than wing chun.
There are stories of Gee Shim teaching the long pole in wing chun as we know. But that is all. I think things are different in Weng Chun. Hung Gar also has stories about the Red Boats. In those stories it says he taught his Hung Kuen fist, which was not named that. He lowered the stances for the rocking boats and is said to have reduced mobility.
In any case, I just wanted to point out that I think these arts are from a seperate lineage any ways and when we speak of wing chun, we can not be speaking for HFY or Gee Shim any ways.
As far as SLT, I think Jim and I have seen numerous SLT/SNT many times over. I think we get the point of the form. I am not sure why HFY’s SLT is any different as it is almost identical to TWC and very close to Yip Man’s. Not much real difference in that Jim would be confused by it. I am not sure what you are using as a reference to Shaolin. Heck, no one knows what was taught there. Hung Kuen is considered by most to be VERY close to what was taught in shaolin. But were is the numerology? I think your assertion is a little biased and unfounded. Before we can say what is linked to shaolin, we must say what was in shaolin, which we just don’t know. All we have is oral traditions, and if we use that, then we have to accept Hung Gar as a traditional Shaolin art. HFY does not look like Hung Gar. Wing Chun does not look like Hung Gar. Neither art promotes hung gar’s theories or concepts. Can speak for Gee Shim since it is a different art anyways. But it does seem to have some connections.
You pointed out that some stuff may look alike but infact may not be. You and others have always said this. Why not take it a step further? Lets just say it is not even wing chun? Obviously you all think SLT is not the same. Chi Sau is not the same. Your legends are not the same. Your a die hard direct decendent from shaolin. Why not just take the step and remove yourself from wing chun? I am not seeing any thing that IS wing chun in your discussions, as every thing is different.
Tom
Tom