Is Yik Kam of Cho Family Wing Chun also Dai Fa Min Kam of Chi Sim Weng Chun ?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
21

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
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.

As a clarification, HFY trains two different tracks at the initial level of the system. In HFYWC, SNT (Siu Nim Tau) refers to something completely different than SLT (Siu Lin Tau). SLT is not a form, so it seems that you are referring to your perceptions of SNT in your quote above.

In the current/upcoming (I am not sure if it in on shelves yet) Inside Kung Fu Magazine, there is an article that details the difference between SNT and SLT in Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun.

I personally see a great difference in the focus of SNT and the way SNT is played between HFY, Yip Man, and TWC, because that has been my personal experience.

This was in no way intended to be disrespectful or confrontational. I am only trying to share what I know in a effort to make sure we are on the same page, and talking about the same thing.

Peace,

Levi

22

The same …

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 I understand your sarcasm but really no need. Let’s start with SLT/SNT. Each has a different nature. When speaking in terms of a first form and training drills, they sound the same.

Regarding Chi Sao. I have seen where even within the same family definitions of Chi Sao differ. I can tell you that in HFY Wing Chun we are shown and learn the distinction of Kiu Sao and Chi Sao through a very logical progression.

To help you understand what is meant by terms like “stuff may look alike but infact may not be”, it’s akin to “go beyond shape and form”. One thing I have learned, understanding is greatly improved when you know the nature of things.

Anytime someone talks about “one looks like”, “this picture shows”, “i saw this and …” etc … you are talking form. Understanding does not come from simple form.

Jim-

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.

We all know how subjective “belief” is. :slight_smile:
I’m listening to your words. And I don’t know if I’ve heard that learning the Wing Chun system is quick. In fact quite the opposite. However, I have heard that Wing Chun could be learned quickly. Therein lies the difference in SLT/SNT.

As for the when and why of training stances there are many many theories. IMO, being a conceptual and principle based system, while training the hands how much do the feet come into play? There are reminders of footwork in the first form. Thus, begins the progression of SLT/Chum Kiu/ Biu Jee. Each has it’s identity and nature.

-David

23

Hi taltos,
I have not really followed HFY lately so a lot of this is new to me. Just a bit of background, I met a HFY guy who was involved for some time and considered him a good friend. He introduced me to Garret Gee and I had a wonderful talk with him. Latter I had the excellent fortune of meeting hiim yet again for a lot of discussions and info about HFY. Later I met some of HFY people from Bennys school and had a chance to see even more HFY.

ANyways, I am not sure the distinction between SLT and SNT. I find it a little odd that they would include both if they are both sets. I saw the set that was identical to TWC SLT. I typically use both terms intercangably as the L and N are reversable, though I realize they can refer to different diffinitions. So quickly, what is the set they do that is equal to TWC SLT so I can use the correct term. Also, you said you see huge differences between the various forms from different lineages. Would you care to go into that a bit? As they are all about identical in choreography, I tend to think the forms are all teaching the same thing. Just different teachers intrepret the forms differently. THough I won’t offer a speculation on HFY as they seem unique in every thing.

Hi David,

I think we disscussed a few things before and had a good experience. I don’t want to come off as a HFY basher cause I am not. I was one of the first people to defend it. Though I can say my attitude has changed significalntly after Benny became involved, though the reason was not because of him. Just noting the time frame. I resepct Gee sifu very much and I have had great extended talks with him. He once trusted me with information to share with the WCML a few years back. But I have seen a totaly different tone comming from that group for the last couple years. They seem to be making interesting claims. Yes there is a little sarcasm, but I mean most of what I say. Yes Chi Sau is different from lineage to lineage. However, Rene can rool with Hendrik and he can roll with me. There is no issue as it is all compatible and based on the same things. Our SLT/SNT are different, yet the same. But we are always being told the HFY is different. It very well may be. But if it is really different, then it can not be Wing Chun any longer. Atleast not the same wing chun.

This may sound inlfamitory, but I htink it solves a lot of problems. If we define Wing Chun as comming from a certain lineage and put HFY and Gee Shim outside that lineage, then things iron themselves out and we can be one big happy family. The forms and Chi Sau can be different, and the HFY people can stick to shaolin while we investigate other possiblilities for our wing chun.

I hope you don’t take offesnse at this. I actually respect HFY and Garrett Gee. I have respect for Jeremy and several others as well. I consider them as close to friends as I can. I don’t mean to upset you or to ruin any opertunity for discussion we may have in the future. But I do think many in the HFY are a bit blind by many things, as their are blind people in other wing chun families as well. In theend, I hope we all get what we want.

Tom

24

Hey Tom,

You’re correct. To go a step further, when I met Hendrik, even though our respective lineages separated in the 1860s or so, and there’s been very little contact since then, we could each very easily understand where the other was coming from. We could stick with the same platforms (several different ones), we could use similar poetic terms and understand each other, we could cross-reference similar conceptual language. Of course there were some differences and distinctions, there always are, but WCK was WCK.

The same thing happened with Jim Roselando and his Gulao Pien San, a lineage that split from the one I follow as well.

In the end, we’re either WCK or not. So far, 3 separate, distinct branches from the Red Junk period retain the same core after almost 150 years. That can be dissembled, it can be ignored, it can be obfuscated, but it remains what is - tangible, repeatable, independantly verifiable.

(BTW - Gee sifu has always been a gentleman and great example when I’ve had the good fortune to speak with him. He always went out of his way not to disrespect other lineages or make any big claims. He also mentioned during the Friendship Seminar that, because some of his early students came from Yip Man backgrounds, he used Yip Man terms to help make the bridge for them. That might have filtered down and could be causing some of the confusion when people just try to compare names. I also had the chance to very briefly touch hands with him in Luk Sao while waiting in line at the restaurant, and he seemed to have no trouble with compatibility).

25

Hi tparkerkfo,

For the sake of simplicity (by no means comprehensive), here is a basic distinction:

SNT (Siu Nim Tau) includes, among other things, the form (the “choregraphed motions” if you will). That’s what you play on your own, and that’s what helps maintain the underlying principles and concepts (the theory, for lack of a better term).

SLT (Siu Lin Tau) includes the separate drills, each with their own levels of progression (much like the Chi Sau progression in most families in that it is just a sequential training/drilling tool for certain concepts). SLT is also the place where you interact with outside energies (i.e. a partner) to test your structures against live resistance and “prove” the system.

The main distinction here is that one can have the necessary physical attributes drilled into their bodies to be able to instinctually fight well without being able to teach another person with any degree of success or accuracy. This is true in much more than just Martial Arts. Good players are not necessarily good coaches. In HFY, SLT is required to be able to respond to a conflict, and SNT is required as an augmentation to SLT in order to be able to pass it on with any level of consistency.

I’m sure there are similar programs/methods in other families (i.e. practicioner vs. instructor and the considerations for each). HFY just gives each a separate name since the two have different aims.

The “choreography of movements” would be found in the SNT. That’s where you start standing straight, open into YJKYM, etc. That is most likely what you feel is similar to TWC’s “SLT.”

Now I have never seriously studied TWC, so my opinion is only that, and there are many more people with much more experience in TWC than I, but here is my take on why I feel/see a difference. When I play the SNT, there are specific things I am focusing on. There are specific things that I am trying to reiterate to myself and train into my body. As an example, some include maintaining the WC Formula, calibrating my hands along three precise vertical reference points and five precise horizontal reference points, etc. If I watch the first form being played by a TWC practicioner, or a Yip Man practicioner, or any other family, (or when I myself play SNT in the Yip Man-based lineage I currently co-train in) I don’t see/feel those things (among others) being consistently expressed and trained. If you (the impersonal you) are not passing through the same position in space, you are not training the same position in space. No offense, and no judgement, it’s just not doing the same thing. I don’t have any issue with that, and I don’t make any validation decisions based on that, I just acknowledge that it’s not training the same thing.

Please not that I have never said “better” or “best,” merely “different.” Whatever issues anyone may have with anyone else, I hope I am succeeding in just sharing my take on my training, without politics or ulterior motives. I may be walking into loaded questions, or I may not be. I’m just trying to share as best I can.

I’m glad to hear that you met Sitaigung Gee, and that you liked him. In the time I’ve been able to spend with him, I’ve found him to be a very personable and open man. I’ve never seen him be asked a question he didn’t answer immidiately and honestly, and although the answer may not truly sink in until much later, he has always answered the EXACT question that was asked. I have to respect that kind of honesty.

Although you were speaking to David later in your post, I would like to add that I thik you are correct in that HFY is not the same Wing Chun (as perhaps others), but I think that is true of may things, and I hope that doesn’t mean we can continue to be open and respectful to one another. I myself have enjoyed the conversation so far.

Rene,

Your description of Sitaigung Gee is dead on with my experience as well. He has always been very polite and non-political about lineages/families/etc. He is so passionate about WC that he simply does not seem to have the time for petty squabbling. Definately a good example.

-Levi

26

Hey Tom

Just to clear things up … I said:

“Regarding Chi Sao. I have seen where even within the same family definitions of Chi Sao differ. I can tell you that in HFY Wing Chun we are shown and learn the distinction of Kiu Sao and Chi Sao through a very logical progression.”- DWC2

You reply was:

Yes Chi Sau is different from lineage to lineage. However, Rene can rool with Hendrik and he can roll with me. There is no issue as it is all compatible and based on the same things. - Tom

As you see I never mentioned compatibility in the least. Where did that come from?

Our SLT/SNT are different, yet the same. But we are always being told the HFY is different. It very well may be. But if it is really different, then it can not be Wing Chun any longer. Atleast not the same wing chun. - Tom

I don’t know what you were told so I don’t know what differences were being referenced. Wing Chun is based on concepts and principles. Those should be expressed through the forms.

BTW - what is the “same” Wing Chun?

… but I htink it solves a lot of problems. If we define Wing Chun as comming from a certain lineage and put HFY and Gee Shim outside that lineage, then things iron themselves out and we can be one big happy family. The forms and Chi Sau can be different, and the HFY people can stick to shaolin while we investigate other possiblilities for our wing chun. - Tom

That’s what you think ??!! LOL !!!

I hope you don’t take offesnse at this.

Offense?? Not in the least. It’s kind of like the ugly girl telling you not to ask her to prom!

I don’t mean to upset you or to ruin any opertunity for discussion we may have in the future.

Tom, why would I get upset? To stick with the analogy, Me and the ugly girl can still pass notes in study hall.

-David

27

Tom sez-

This may sound inlfamitory, but I htink it solves a lot of problems. If we define Wing Chun as comming from a certain lineage and put HFY and Gee Shim outside that lineage, then things iron themselves out and we can be one big happy family. The forms and Chi Sau can be different, and the HFY people can stick to shaolin while we investigate other possiblilities for our wing chun.

I don’t know about the happy family part- but not a bad idea Tom.
We keep going around in the same circles again and again.

28

Hi Rene- Thanks for your words. I beleive those to be true. Either it is wing chun or it is not. People talk about how things modify, yet we have a fairly consistant group of wing chun that has been preserved fairly well. Only Pan Nam’s seems very different and that is because he synthysized his system. Well, OK, there may be a couple others. Vilage styles of Hung Gar also have the same flavor, dispite differences in the forms. It would be interesting to see Hung Moon Hung Gar and see how it differs.

Hi Joy- Maybe not a happy family. LOL. But we can try! ; )

Levi-Thanks for the info. It helps. I wasn’t aware of a distinction between SLT and SNT in HFY. I applaud your level headed response. Pardon me since I am use to knee jerk reactions and huge debates on every subject. I am semi new to this particular forum and maybe I am still carying some baggage. I hope real discussions like this are the norm! I am not setting you up or playing politics, though at least one person may think so. You can make up your own mind though.

Hi David- my reference to chi sau was not a direct reflection of your comments, but was motivated by what you said. Many times I have been told, or read where others were told the HFY is different than YM and others. You mentioned that the definition differs and while it may at the macro level, we all feel it is the same. Sorry if I took my comments to far. LOL. I may be carrying some bagage as I wrote above.

When I said, “not the same wing chun” , I meant that if you are not adhearing to the principles, it is no longer wing chun. If it calls it self wing chun but still breaks the principles, then it is not the same wing chun. It is just called the same name. This would go for some one who doesn’t posses good wing chun skills, or an art that actually violates the wing chun principles. I have found that a name alone doesn’t make the are so. There are atleast 2 Bak mei styles if not more. There are 2 Hung Kuen styles, if not more. There apears to be 2 Lau Gar styles, if not more. Many other styles may also exist with similar names that are not the same. Weng Chun and Wing Chun are often confused. My point was only that wing chun among most families are all the same. This even includes Pan Nam’s which is quite different. But if it doesn’t hold to the same principles, it is no longer wing chun. At least that is my opinion. So when some one tells me they don’t hold to these principles or that it is not the same, then I have no choice but to consider it something else with a similar name.

Also, I don’t mind being the ugly girl from time to time. LOL. I am glad we can discuss with out stepping on toes. With people like you and Levi, I can warm back up to HFY! All I ask is level headed discussion and reasonablility that seems to allude some. Thanks for the discussion and I hope it continues to go well.

VAPIR NO2

29

Tom,

No worries! This is a good discussion. When a group of people can share information openly and respectfully, whether they ultimately agree or disagree is a moot point. Since no one is trying to “jockey for position,” there are no toes available to step on!

Well, my weekend is here, so I will see you all on Monday.

-Levi

30

WCK or not

Hello gentlemen,
Allow me to first apologize for the delay in response. My PC is not doing so well right now.

Hello Jim,
I hope in the future more can be revealed to you in a more suitable format. I understand why you have your point of view on the origins WCK. I would have to admit that with out certian experiences and understandings it can be hard to see where the Chi Sim and HFY identity transends style. Of course this would be far beyond something that we can cover via the internet. I can only say I hope to see you around and no offense is taken by your point of view. I have to say that the Shaolin systems such as HFY and Chi Sim themselves offer themselves as the artifacts that will draw it all together for you as it did for me and others. I would challenge those who have thier doubts to learn atleast first few levels of information from these systems!(with an empty cup of course) I think the systems will speak for themselves. For those that have no interest in taking me up on this challenge. I can only say that there is a certian freedom in fau kiu (wandering) So I have no emotional attachment to those who choose to enjoy this freedom. I can only say that I have moved beyond that point and cannot enjoy such freedoms. Once you move beyond this point there is simply no going back! No matter what the attachment, like,dislike,lineage in question. It is not that I refuse to go back to fau kiu I simply can not do it. (Hello Tom good to hear from you) I’m sorry if this offends but this is the case.

Chango (saat geng sau)

31

WCK or not

Hello gentlemen,
Allow me to first apologize for the delay in my responses. My PC is not doing so well right now.

Hello Jim,
I hope in the future more can be revealed to you in a more suitable format. I understand why you have your point of view on the origins WCK. I would have to admit that with out certian experiences and understandings it can be hard to see where the Chi Sim and HFY identity transends style. Of course this would be far beyond something that we can cover via the internet. I can only say I hope to see you around and no offense is taken by your point of view. I have to say that the Shaolin systems such as HFY and Chi Sim themselves offer themselves as the artifacts that will draw it all together for you as it did for me and others. I would challenge those who have thier doubts to learn atleast first few levels of information from these systems!(with an empty cup of course) I think the systems will speak for themselves. For those that have no interest in taking me up on this challenge. I can only say that there is a certian freedom in fau kiu (wandering) So I have no emotional attachment to those who choose to enjoy this freedom. I can only say that I have moved beyond that point and cannot enjoy such freedoms. Once you move beyond this point there is simply no going back! No matter what the attachment, like,dislike,lineage in question. It is not that I refuse to go back to fau kiu I simply can not do it. (Hello Tom good to hear from you) I’m sorry if this offends but this is the case.

Chango (saat geng sau)

32

Chango sez:I hope in the future more can be revealed to you in a more suitable format. I understand why you have your point of view on the origins WCK. I would have to admit that with out certian experiences and understandings it can be hard to see where the Chi Sim and HFY identity transends style.

Meditation on inner meanings?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

33

Re: WCK or not

Hi Chango,

Wow, I have gotten or read several posts that shocked me. It is good to see good discussions without ad hominen attacks and such. Yes I think we all have different view points on the origin of wing chun. And I personally think that is healthy as it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket. At least on the collective whole. It is good to look into different perspectives. One of the quotes I love is from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data”. In many cases this happens a lot. I admit much of my theories are based on instinct and what seems to make sense. But that is why I try to be open. I would love to see more data and I can not wait to get a hold of some.

Anyways, I myself study a shaolin system, which is also directly linked to Gee Shim. I can honestly say that I don’t think it draws things together. Atleast not in the way that has been presented in the past couple years. The more I learn of Wing Chun and Hung Gar, the more I think they are NOT related. However this doesn’t mean I am blind, I do see some inconsistencies in my position, which makes me uncomfortable. There are SOME things that ARE similar between the styles. But know one seems to focus on those aspects. Instead they point to silly things like YJKYM (which came from outside of Hung Gar), begining of Tiger and Crane (which was not even around yet), the Butterfly Knives and pole (which almost all southern arts have), Bong Sau (also common in southern arts), and the crane techniques (which were introduced later to Hung Kuen). Power generation is not the same between both arts. The principles are very different. Hung Gar seems to have maintained the flavor, if not the choreography, of the early teachings. Wing Chun has maintained most of its teachings intact. Yet they both are very different. The principles are not the same, nor are the concepts. Hung Gar seems similar to other Shaolin styles I have seen. They use the same basics. All shaolin styles retain these. Wing Chun seems closer to white crane, Bak Mei, Leung Ying, mantis, and other Hakka arts. Triangular footwork, Narrow stances, explosive short power, elbows down and inside the body frame, compact body, triangluar footwork, power from the body rather than the shoulders. All shaolin styles maintain a salute, which wing chun seems to ignore, except for those that personally do it, and another branch that I know of.

Then there is the fact that Wing Chun seems to ignore wing chun coming from Jee Shim. Most branches credit Ng Mui (who has ties to Ermei). The hands are all distinctive, which comes from Ng Mui. Jee Shims role is limited to the Pole form, which is the one part that does seem Hung Gar like both in application and practice. This is were our horse comes from. Amazing how well preserved this little are is. Few have “modified” it to fit in with the rest of wing chun. It is a bit of a contradiction of sorts. To me, this is important.

I am also confused why there are no records of the southern temple, especially since it is so important. They exist for the northern one. Why do the Hung Muen list different survivors? Why are there so many different accounts of the shaolin story that don’t coincide? Were their 5 survivors or a lot? Why is the northern temple stories confused with the southern? The stories seem to overlap? Who was at which temple? Jee Shim is said to have fled the northern one, then the southern one after a fire at both? But the stories put the fires over 100 years apart. Hung Gar story reveals that Gee Shim’s primary student was Hung Hei Gwoon. He received the bulk of Gee Shim’s training (which was tiger based, and did not include crane). He had relateivly little time on the red boats, which may explain the pole connection.

In one artical it was mentioned that Cheung Ng could not have been a beggar because the sophisticated opera members would not have have respected the skills of such a lowly person. Well, by all accounts, Jee Shim was a lowly person. In the wing chun fables he was hiding as a mere cook. Why would the sophisticated opera members then respect him if they were bound not to be able to respect Cheung Ng, if he was a beggar?

Dispite all of this, it doesn’t prove much, I admit. These are a handful of the factors that make me question everything I have heard so far from all sides. When I practice Hung Gar, I often see something wing chunnish and I start to doubt my own thinking as well. There could be logical explinations and what not. But I have not seen them.

As for your challenge, I think I exposed myself to HFY before you were involved with it. Benny was not yet part of the system if I recall correctly. I discussed many things with Gee sifu. He is very sure of his teachings and is very confident. But that doesn’t make it so. In any case, much of the information I have heard posted was never reveled to me, just a part of it. But he did go into the theory ind detail. But I can not say that there really is any thing unique. Everything I have seen and heard, is the same as other wing chun. Just some of the terminology is different. Time and space? I have that in my wing chun. I also have it in my hung gar. I think it is esential in ANY fighting art. Nothing unique. So, I have went the path of your challenge. To go any further would be to actually study under Gee sifu. And since I can not do so, it wont happen.

I don’t mean to sound hostile, that is not my intent. I am just laying down most of my cards so you and others can see my cards and where I am comming from. I would love to discuss any and all these issues in a respectful manner. Maybe you can help sort some of it out.

Anyways, thanks for being level headed.

Tom

34

Phenix/Hendrik

From what I’ve been reading regarding the non-political stance taken by the Ghee Hin Secret Society in Singapore, how do you think this affected the Wing Chun Kuen that came out of Malaysia???
It seems that they were not so interested in the the political aim of overthrowing the Qing and restoring the Ming dynasty in China.

Sheldon

35

Tom reread my challenge!

Tom,
I think you missed my point I said that you need to learn " the first few levels" of Chi sim Weng chun and HFY. Not Hung ga I’m not speaking on Hung ga that is a entire different subject.

<snip> Anyways, I myself study a shaolin system, which is also directly linked to Gee Shim. I can honestly say that I don’t think it draws things together. Atleast not in the way that has been presented in the past couple years. The more I learn of Wing Chun and Hung Gar, the more I think they are NOT related. However this doesn’t mean I am blind, I do see some inconsistencies in my position, which makes me uncomfortable. There are SOME things that ARE similar between the styles. But know one seems to focus on those aspects. Instead they point to silly things like YJKYM (which came from outside of Hung Gar), begining of Tiger and Crane (which was not even around yet), the Butterfly Knives and pole (which almost all southern arts have), Bong Sau (also common in southern arts), and the crane techniques (which were introduced later to Hung Kuen). Power generation is not the same between both arts. The principles are very different. Hung Gar seems to have maintained the flavor, if not the choreography, of the early teachings. Wing Chun has maintained most of its teachings intact. Yet they both are very different. The principles are not the same, nor are the concepts. Hung Gar seems similar to other Shaolin styles I have seen. They use the same basics. All shaolin styles retain these. Wing Chun seems closer to white crane, Bak Mei, Leung Ying, mantis, and other Hakka arts. Triangular footwork, Narrow stances, explosive short power, elbows down and inside the body frame, compact body, triangluar footwork, power from the body rather than the shoulders. All shaolin styles maintain a salute, which wing chun seems to ignore, except for those that personally do it, and another branch that I know of.

**read above message Do you know the HFY formula? if not I’m sorry but you don’t have the first level of HFY.

<snip>Then there is the fact that Wing Chun seems to ignore wing chun coming from Jee Shim. Most branches credit Ng Mui (who has ties to Ermei). The hands are all distinctive, which comes from Ng Mui. Jee Shims role is limited to the Pole form, which is the one part that does seem Hung Gar like both in application and practice. This is were our horse comes from. Amazing how well preserved this little are is. Few have “modified” it to fit in with the rest of wing chun. It is a bit of a contradiction of sorts. To me, this is important.

***once again proving that you do not have the first level of understanding in HFY. Nothing personal it’s just very clear that you do not have an understanding of the foot work in HFY.

<snip> I am also confused why there are no records of the southern temple, especially since it is so important. They exist for the northern one. Why do the Hung Muen list different survivors? Why are there so many different accounts of the shaolin story that don’t coincide? Were their 5 survivors or a lot? Why is the northern temple stories confused with the southern? The stories seem to overlap? Who was at which temple? Jee Shim is said to have fled the northern one, then the southern one after a fire at both? But the stories put the fires over 100 years apart. Hung Gar story reveals that Gee Shim’s primary student was Hung Hei Gwoon. He received the bulk of Gee Shim’s training (which was tiger based, and did not include crane). He had relateivly little time on the red boats, which may explain the pole connection.

****wasn’t there and article (Independant of the VTM) on the discovery of the site of the southern shoulin temple? Wasn’t there a post on the VTM visiting this sight? Didn’t the VTM members post on this very forum about an up coming report or article on this visit. I think you will be very impressed with what the few remaining original structures! Tom if you have questions like these please pay closer attention to like discussions. you might want to look further in the Chi sim WCk information for possible answers to your questions on Chi sim. I think you will be pleasently suprised.

<snip>In one artical it was mentioned that Cheung Ng could not have been a beggar because the sophisticated opera members would not have have respected the skills of such a lowly person. Well, by all accounts, Jee Shim was a lowly person. In the wing chun fables he was hiding as a mere cook. Why would the sophisticated opera members then respect him if they were bound not to be able to respect Cheung Ng, if he was a beggar?

***Tom first I will say that you really should remember that Chi sim was underground as a cook only revealing his skills when threatened. But once his skill had been revealed he then gained the respect beyond what is normally paid to a “mere cook”.

***I will address translation of “Tan Sau” as simple as I can. Hummm You have Cheung Ng noted for his skill and martial skill and listed in the family of WCK. WCK an art that uses a technique called Tan sau.Being more specific in HFY this is the technique used to introduce Proper time and space according to maximum efficency. Hummm Cheung Ng was known to be active in Opera activity.Noted by non-martial arts historians but opera historians. WCK has very strong links to the opera. with out going into depth I can say at first look it is pretty clear that the translation does not mean cripple hand. Once again that cripple hand bit came from an assuption in a magazine article and no other sources of historic value. From that a few took that translation and ran with it. Maybe those people would like to point out where things point to this meaning “cripple hand”.

<snip>As for your challenge, I think I exposed myself to HFY before you were involved with it. Benny was not yet part of the system if I recall correctly.

***this tells us nothing on the depth of understanding that you have. So you found it first. But if you do not recognize it for what it is. When you found it means nothing.

<snip> I discussed many things with Gee sifu. He is very sure of his teachings and is very confident. But that doesn’t make it so. In any case, much of the information I have heard posted was never reveled to me, just a part of it. But he did go into the theory ind detail.

***Of course Sigung’s confidence does not make it true.but putting it to the test is what makes it true. once you have done this you have that same confidence. True confidence can only be drived from true knowlege! I have put every thing I have learned in HFY to the test and I can say that it always withstands all test.

<snip>But I can not say that there really is any thing unique. Everything I have seen and heard, is the same as other wing chun. Just some of the terminology is different. Time and space? I have that in my wing chun. I also have it in my hung gar. I think it is esential in ANY fighting art

*** Time and space are a constant Tom however you forgot to test your time and space against “maximum efficency” So you can have all of the time and space you want with your system be it Hung ga, Wing chun, Tom kwon do or Tom P. Chaun LOL! or what ever. But if you have the proper time and space according to maximum efficiency then you have HFY. There is only one “maximum efficiency” if you add to it or take away from it you loose the proper time and space. At that point you cannot be doing HFY. Tom we haven’t even beging to discuss energy.

<snip> Nothing unique. So, I have went the path of your challenge. To go any further would be to actually study under Gee sifu. And since I can not do so, it wont happen.

***Tom Nothing unique? that only shows that you do not understand what has been presented to you. “Maximum efficency” alone by definition would mean there can only be one. so I would have to say unique indeed. Maybe you should go back and re-examine your experiences with my Sigung it seems you have missed quite a bit of the point. Hey you may not be ready for this information. Maybe it isn’t for you. However I know I could use maximum efficency and true time and space. It’s nothing personal it may not be for you.

<snip>I don’t mean to sound hostile, that is not my intent. I am just laying down most of my cards so you and others can see my cards and where I am comming from. I would love to discuss any and all these issues in a respectful manner. Maybe you can help sort some of it out.

Anyways, thanks for being level headed.

Tom

***No I did not take it as being hostile. I honestly feel that you are confused. I do not mean it as an insult when I say that you probrably did not grasp all that was offered to you. I want you to reread read my challenge it is not in regards to Hung ga. My reference to Chi sim is to Chi sim weng chun. If we are discussing Hung ga we are not being precise in regards to my challenge. My challenge is based on these two very precise systems. I still maintain that I have yet to see a qualified conclusion that is in disagreement with link of these two systems to each other or to Chan.I don’t mean this as an attack or to say if you disagree your are wrong. No I’m saying that I have yet to be impressed with the level of information on HFY by those who have dissagreed thus far. To discuss HFY with out understanding of the formula and it’s application. Is to not have a discussion on HFY at all. So it is not enough just to know the formula but to have an understanding of it. With this understanding one can have a “trained eye”. So to the untrained eye many things may look “exactly” like HFY but to the trained eye HFY is distinct and one of a kind. I hope you understand what I’m saying here.

Saat geng sau!!!:cool:

36

fau kiu

"Dispite all of this, it doesn’t prove much, I admit. These are a handful of the factors that make me question everything I have heard so far from all sides. When I practice Hung Gar, I often see something wing chunnish and I start to doubt my own thinking as well. There could be logical explinations and what not. But I have not seen them. " Tom

LOL, that was good and genuine thanks for the light reading. I am left wondering then what is the most revealing factor that directs your leaning the way in which you are leaning in all of this?

37

Jee Shim Che Sim etc

Jee Shim didnt not exist so to put forward a argument or lineage claims stemming from him proves nothing or less than nothing. I have posted several times the research done in China by Chinese Historians on Southern Martial Arts and the I.S.D.N. number of the book this group of over 100 historians published.

Many figures in Martial Tales did actually exist and records of them have been found in China. No historical record of jee Shim or anyone like Jee Shim has ever been found. Tracing your roots to a made up name and saying there is my proof for my system shows only a good imagination by the true founders whoever they may be.

38

Chango sez:

*** Time and space are a constant

-----------------------------------------There goes the theory of relativity
of time and space!!!

39

Time and space are illusionarily (that’s not a word, but my use of it here underlines its appropriateness) constant at the human fractal scale. At larger scales, the relativity of time and space are more apparent, while at smaller scales the uncertainty is more clear. My travels on an airplane don’t really make me younger, and my molecules jumping around doesn’t really let me teleport, so I typically ignore those factors in day to day life.

However, one can’t expect an apocryphal 17th century temple to have more sophisticated paradigm shifts than Einstein or Heisenberg, so I guess that makes sense (though perhaps Ferman will show up later.)

I think more to the point, however, is that it doesn’t matter in the real world. In the lab, in writing, precision analysis can be useful. In life, there is seldom the time in which to measure the space, and seldom the space in which to take the time.

If I give you a ball and tell you to throw it at a bottle some 10 feet away, certainly there are precise measurements you could take to achieve a complete time/space understanding of yourself and the ball relative to the bottle, and perhaps that might help you (perhaps not). However, if I put a linebacker beside you, and tell him to tackle at the sound of the same whistle you’re supposed to start throwing at… well, your choice if you want to measure or not.

Pure and applied physicists aren’t typically world champion pool players or boxers, though they certainly understand formulae far better than the champs. What the champs have, what every human has, is the “fuzzy logic” to get close enough without having to waste time measuring or needless complicate things with formulae. Not needed for bulding a house, where you take your time to get it perfect, but vital for “on-the-fly” dynamics like fighting.

BTW- Chango, nice to see you posting. Hope everything is well.

40

Hi Chango and others.

Thanks for responding. You asked people to take up your challenge and look into HFY. I answered that I have. You don’t like the level of knowledge I have and suggest more. I don’t think that is an option unless I sign up and spend years studying it. I saw NOTHING that radically changed my impressions. I thought the ideas and methods seemed sound. But to be honest, I saw nothing that amazed me. To this day, there has only been 1 person that simply amazed me. I don’t expect you to understand.

Time and space. Your telling me that HFY has some sort of LOCK on being in the correct time and space? That only HFY can develop this? I think you swallowed the hook, line, and sinker. Time and Space theory did not exist prior to the 1900’s. Gee sifu is a very smart and intellegent guy. That is his theory put into an analogy, IMNSHO. No wing chun will work without proper time and space as it has been discribed. There is ONLY one time to deliver a technique that covers one space. If it is not correct, then it is easily broken. However, there are many paths you can take. I suggest that you look into better wing chun and you will see others DO have it. I am a little disheartened to hear that you think all wing chun is lacking. It just shows how little knowledge you have.

Hung Ga is just something I can use to add to this discussion since there seems to be many inthe wing chun circles that is using bits and pieces of their story to support wing chun history. If you speak of shaolin and Gee Shim, then Hung Gar must be discussed as other arts. I myself beleive the two arts are seperate and only stories link them. But I could be wrong. And Yes Gee Shim is said to be a cook. And he taught his version of Shaolin on the red boats, which was Hung Gar before all the additions. Wing Chun only credits the POLE from to him, and it seems pretty well preserved with the flavor of Hung Gar. The hands are very different. No other wing chun points to him other than Gee Shim and HFY. HFY can not be verified beyond Gee sifu. Gee Shim may not be pure wing chun directly connected to us. We may have some connections since both seemed to be practiced on the red boats. My point is that Weng Chun may indeed have been passed on by Gee Shim at the same time as Hung Gar, or more than likely, he taught the Weng Chun folks. Maybe. I’ll buy that. But I don’t think Gee Shim is our direct ancestor. HFY looks like Yip Man and “Traditional” wing chun, but we are told it is “TOTALLY” Different. If it is, then I don’t beleive it is wing chun and comes from a different source that MAY have some overlap. But I don’t yet buy the theory. Not yet atleast. Not saying it is fake or anything, I just don’t think that the data is in yet.

Tan Sau Ng. He is a historical figure. He was known to have had trouble with the government. THe funny thing is, he was almost unknown to martial artists until Pan Nam spoke of him. He was well known as a Opera person. But there is NO mention of his martial skill from what I have been told. I wait to stand corrected. So he had a name “Tan Sau” Ng. What does that mean? Does it mean he was Wing Chun! How about the other way around. I don’t think some one really looked at a crane and said he, I am going to incorporate that technique! I think they discovered a technique and some one said, hey, that looks like a crane wing. Perhaps, just perhaps, the opera members knew of Ng’s hand and noticed that the “tan Sau” technique reminded them of Tan Sau Ng. Perhaps they named the technique after him. But in any case, there is no record of Cheung Ng being a martial artist, but there are accounts of him. His background and activities as being in trouble was known. Why would his name be lost in all of wing chun but kept by HFY only?

As to your specific comments.

I don’t have a deep level of knowledge of HFY. I know about as much as can be expected from meeting Garret Gee and talking to several people. Limited yes. But I made the effort. Nothing shocked me and left that big of an impression on me. Ken is still the only person that left an incredible impression on me.

Are you saying that HFY maintains a horse like Hung Kuen?

I am recently new to this forum so I missed many good topics. Yes there are several articals that abound. I had a minor discussion with Gene on this topic and I he pointed out a couple articals that might be what you spoke of. There is one or two comming up. I recommended that he try to publish a good artical, or series that would debate the issue with real scholars. I have not seen much of the newer info, but what I have seen has been highly skeptical and not all people involved agreed that the remains were Shaolin. Anyways, I would love to see more and eat my words. Personally, I would love if the southern shaolin story is true. It is quite a story and I am not opposed to it at all. I just don’t see the evidence as clear as others. Some makes sense, and others don’t. It is far from a complete story in either case.

If HFY can withstand all tests, and is infallible if applied properly, which all the articals I read say, then I would expect to see it dominate in the UFC and other such events. LOL. You have all the self references to measure that is the equivelant of modern radar, you have time and space. HFY can only be done one way, the right way. If all this is true, I would expect you guys to be able to dominate EVERY level of compitition from challenge matches and UFC type events to simple rolling and friendship and seminar settings. Can you guys dominate every one else? The true test is in the hands. You say that it stands up to every test. Does it stand up to others hands? All others? Are you sure about that? That is quite a claim.

There is no such thing as effecient time and space. Either your timing is on or it is off. Either it works or it doesn’t. There isnothing specail in the HFY method. This is smoke and mirrors. Any one with a good level of wing chun can do the exact same thing as HFY. There was an artical that was written by Benny that discribed the time and space concept. Either he failed miserably at discribing it, or we all have the same thing, if we are any good. There was nothing unique about it. To bad you could spend several hours with my sifu like I did yours inorder to really see the difference. Then you could see you good time and space hold up. Not to disrespect your ideas, but I think it is baloney as stated. I know what I am being taught is good. But I know it is up to me to use it correctly. It won’t hold up to your sifu. I know that and am comfortable with it. but your telling me that you guys do some sort of magicical super secret methods that are infallible. I say there is nothing unique and it wont hold up like you guys think to good wing chun. It may be good, not denying that at all. The theories probably work well too. Not saying they don’t. I don’t take what you said to personal. Maybe I don’t get it. But what you are saying is hillarious in that you honestly beleive that your art is perfection. If that is true, you would have absolutly no problem being the king of gor sau. But that reminds of the old saying, what happens when an imoveable object meets an unstoppible one? By that I mean, what happens when two HFY people meet who have “perfect” use of time and space and other tools? I assume there is still room for error. If their is, then why all the fuss over the theory as being perfect and such as it can still fail in the hands of mere mortals?

I did not take your challenge to include Hung Ga. I went and say HFY. That was your challenge, no? Well I did that. I did not sign p however. Wasn’t your challenge to see it for your self, thinkiing we would see the light and sign up? Well I did see it and now your saying that I am confused and obviously didn’t get it. Nope that is not it. I saw Ken’s methods and you know what, I signed up immediatly. I am using hung gar because it has the connections to chan and to gee shim and to shaolin and to the red boats and to many things. If you talk about these things, then you must include Hung Gar. A few years ago, you guys were bringing up hung gar. I now study it and I don’t see the connection to wing chun. I don’t know Chi Shim wing chun and have never seen it, so I can not comment on that. Your HFY doesn;t look like hung gar at all. Where are the hung Gar principles? Where is a connection in what was done?

Anyways, I don’t want this to turn ugly or personal. I’ll accept being “confused” LOL. I admit I am. I am sure I’ll met some more HFY people in the future and I would love to see what is truely unique and special about HFY. I have no beef with you guys, but I have problems with some comments as it doesn’t make sense to me.

Tom

Oregon Dispensary