I ordered it from Amazon on October 12; it arrived on November 24.
Paperback, glossy cover, 226 pages, large easily readable text, clear and precise drawings. Layout is similar to other books in the series, e.g. Mastering Ju Jitsu by Renzo Gracie and John Danaher.
The black and white photographs are of good, though not exceptional, quality; the photographs in “Mastering Ju Jitsu” are larger and clearer to my eye. This is hardly a major issue; the best books I have seen for learning a martial art are John Will’s BJJ books, in which neither paper quality nor photographic quality are as good as they are in this book; but in the case of John Will’s books, the photos capture perfectly the subject being discussed.
Many of the photographs appear to be of relatively junior and less technically adept (which is not to say poor) students; this is not bad either, indeed for me one of the most enjoyable and endearing aspects of Rene Ritchie’s book on Yuen Kay-San Wing Chun was that the photographs of techniques were nearly all of Rene and his training partners doing the best they could (which was not at all bad, I hasten to add). Better this than a bunch of “venerable masters” - it also gives the prospective student more of a feeling that, “Yeah, I can do this too”.
The historical material is presented with fine organisation and at an unprecedented level of detail. Also, the exposition of the principles of the HFY system are explained with clarity and in great detail. No other book has presented the theoretical underpinnings of any Wing Chun variant with such precision and in such depth. In that regard, it is indisputable that this book breaks new ground and sets a new standard. A good deal of interesting information on Chi Sim Wing Chun was also presented. All aspects of HFY theory (that is the right word) are presented in a highly organised and deeply detailed fashion. The technical aspects are explained with tight and precise writing; the discussions of more esoteric concepts perhaps occasionally tend to wander a little, but they by definition difficult to discuss.
The main premise of the book is that the fundamental principles of HFY, or “formula”, allow the practitioner to produce an ideal “dimensional” defense and or offense, in terms of space, time and energy, which will, in precise physical and scientific terms, result in the most efficient way to neutralise the particular threat even in the rapid change and frenzied chaos that is hand to hand combat, and that training of the requisite quality and quantity will produce fighters that can perform this way at will against any adversary, trained in whatever system and whatever skill, no matter how superior their physical attributes may be.
Many may feel that reality is too chaotic (in the “chaos theory” sense) and humanity too varied and imperfect for such a proposition to hold in the real world. “Performance overrides precision” and other maxims proposed by other famed martial artists come to mind. But the book argues its case well, if not completely convincingly.
The other premise was that this formula was developed by the combined efforts of soldiers and Shaolin disciples several hundred years ago, was perfect then and remains so to this day, and was preserved in secret by only a few members of arcane societies. Others, without access to the complete system, who built on their limited knowledge through their own efforts or by blending with other systems, were doomed to watering down the “pure” system.
Even the systems of such WC ancestors as Leung Jan and Yip Man are seen as impure and demonstrably inferior, as matters of scientific fact since they do not implement the HFY “formula”.
These outcomes seem anomalous in terms of the history and philosophy of science, where similar discoveries are made by independent researchers, and where continuous evolution or revolution leads to continuing refinement
and improvement over time, and where collaboration and visibility rather than secrecy lead to the most rapid improvements.
Also, the battlefields where various “formulae” have developed have changed over time; people such as W.E. Fairbairn and Rex Applegate had the ascendancy around WWII where H2H combat is concerned (their armies won, didn’t they?) - and in modern times where wars are fought with high and low tech explosives and projectile weapons, tanks and air support (and hijacked airliners and car bombs), the H2H combat arena most people care about are urban environments, muggings, carjackings, brawls and home invasions.
In those arenas and in these times people such as Scott Sonnon, Tony Blauer and Geoff Thompson are arguably at the forefront. For whatever reason, the U.S. Army’s H2H combat programs are now heavily BJJ based, something that even I, as an almost rabidly keen student of BJJ, find surprising.
Is a system developed on battlefields 300 odd years ago really superior for modern conditions to anything any of these more recent researchers in the field have come up with?
Perhaps those people need this book. Perhaps you do as well. I would recommend it to them in the highly unlikely event they sought my advice, as food for thought - and probably to hear their impressions, as unbiased professionals, working with law enforcement and military personnel, who the authors of the book claim as part of their target audience.
In essence the questions are: can a formula developed for dealing with battlefield adversaries 300 years ago in China still be ideal for citizenry in modern urban society, or for combat and law enforcement professionals?
Do the massive technological and societial changes, and the discoveries made between times, have zero impact on the effectiveness of the (now ancient) formula?
The phrase “paradigm shift” is used extensively in the book to describe the embrace of these ideas by the HFY trainee. “Act of faith” is IMO a more accurate term.
I do not state this pejoratively- any trainee in any skill that involves personal risk must start from a base of ignorance, and must place his or her faith in the instructor and the methodology, at least until the student’s experience and increasing knowledge and understanding allow him or her to make sound judgements - yea or nay - on their own. I know I have done this with all the teachers I studied under - with generally excellent results, though also with one humungous failure.
The HFY propositions are counter-intuitive - not a bad thing, so are many of BJJ’s basic strategies - go against the experiences of most, and sound too good to be true (which doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t). As HFY practitioners have stated over and over, it is not possible to determine whether their proposals will
work or not without experiencing them for yourself. Without that experience, one must make judgements based on what experiences and knowledge one does have. If direct experience is not easily obtained (for someone like me living in Australia, it is not), or the arguments of the proponents not sufficiently convincing for that experience to be sought, the modern history of most martial arts, and the experiences of many, indicate that scepticism is a healthy attitude.
However, scepticism should never reject the possibility that the proposal could be true, at least in part. If this really flies when you run it up the flagpole, and better than anything else, yes please, I’d like some. The book argues its case very well and in great detail; the proof of the pudding is not therein, however.
The writers have elected to undertake a polemic and political approach in regard to other variants of Wing Chun Kung Fu, lumping them together as “Popular Wing Chun” and pointing out their alleged “shortcomings” at regular intervals. I could not avoid thinking of William Cheung and his “Traditional” and “Modified” versions of Wing Chun, and the thirty-odd years of negativity brought to the Wing Chun family as a result. I cannot see that doing the same thing in this case will end up with a markedly different result. The only non-HFY substyle left out of this treatment is Chi Sim, probably a wise plan since its leader, Andreas Hoffman, may have been rather less inclined to write the foreword to the book otherwise.
As with all generalisations, this one involves many inaccuracies, one being the usage of a low line tan sao in all “Popular” lineages. They’re not all the same, chaps.
This attitude must raise questions in the minds of discerning readers about the objectivity of the presentation of the historical and technical information in the book.
Bruce Lee is portrayed as a worthy seeker after martial truth, ultimately failing due to his inability to access HFY’s Wing Chun “formula”. A somewhat strange attitude to arguably the most successful and influential martial artist of recent, perhaps any, times, probably an early influence on some more senior HFY practitioners today.
On page 47, the authors launch into a diatribe regarding other historians and internet users, for those in the know obviously aimed pretty squarely at recent authors of other popular books on Wing Chun, including the one that first brought Gee Sifu to the attention of the rest of the Wing Chun world, who have chosen scepticism where the HFY proposals are concerned. The inclusion of this piece of vituperation is unnecessary and IMO spoils an otherwise excellent book. The HFY family has had few qualms about using the internet for their own purposes. The reader is counselled that virtual style and Sifu bashing via the internet and criticism of other styles should not be tolerated, though apparently if a few of you band together and produce a book which bashes brother lineages, that is fine.
