C’mon, I gotta know, did Jim sport the Elvis sideburns? Thick rimmed glasses? Was he in plaid? Did he have wing-tips? (or were these videos not shot during the 70s? 8P )
RR
Hey RR,
Indeed the hair was a bit higher (and thicker) 
. I am sure the side burns could have been longer too. Ok! You win. Some old footage will be in the mail. You can see for yourself.
Regards,
Points
Jim R sez:Why dont the list members discuss techinical aspects that you find breaking WC principles/methods instead of childish mudd slinging. Then maybe the level of this discussion will be raised and we can possibly learn something from it.
Jim: some points:
1.Technically- the lifting of materials without understanding them shows. Technically bad bong sao, tan sao and fok sao…technically-stiff- wrong angulations, shoulder raised in the pics,technically- jerky poon sao in the video, technically poor turning in chum kiu and with the jong…doesnt that say it enough?
NO, IT ONLY CRITICIZES AND DOES NOT OFFER ANY INSIGHT ON WHAT THE CORRECT WAY OF DOING IT WOULD BE, OR WHY THAT SHOULD INSPIRE SUCH PERSONAL ATTACKS ON RANDY RATHER THAN JUST DISAGREEING ON HIS METHODS. YOU YOURSELF SEEM TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT RANDY IS ON HIS OWN AND DOESN’T REPRESENT FONG, SO WHY SHOULD HE BE EXPECTED TO DO THINGS YOUR WAY? AND AS I HAVE SEEN ON THE VTAA NEWSGROUP, IT DOESN’T APPEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF MEMBERS THINK MUCH OF YOU OR FONG’S METHOD IN GENERAL EITHER. DOES THAT MAKE YOU WRONG?
2.Fong’s theory book was written and distributed before RW’s singapore printed stuff was in the works.The latter changes a few things here and there without obviously understanding the material.Fong’s videos wre already out. Inside Kung Fu wanted to get into videos ina big way and Rw was available. IKF has since moved on to other money making enterprises.
WE KNOW. IN FACT, YOU ARE ACTUALLY MAKING MY POINT HERE. BUT THAT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE POINT I HAVE MADE NUMEROUS TIMES REGARDING THE REASON RANDY EVER DID THOSE BOOKS IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH WAS TO PREPARE FOR FONG’S BOOKS THAT HE WANTED RANDY TO PRODUCE AT CLEAN ACE PRINTING PRESS IN SINGAPORE. OR ARE YOU SAYING FONG CLAIMS THAT IS A LIE?
- Kung fu invoves long sustained regular corrections of practically everything. That is not the case here.
ARE YOU SOMEHOW AWARE OF EVERYTHING RANDY DOES? AND WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE?
- Several years ago- Fong made a definitive statement on his non relationship with the person in question. he does not keep up with RW. Its upto someone else to publish that statement if they wish.
CAN’T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT STATEMENTS YOU ARE REFERRING TO -EITHER FONG’S OR THE ONE IT IS UP TO SOMEONE ELSE TO PUBLISH. PLEASE CLARIFY.
- This is not the first or the last time that someone who shoulnt -claims he wasa student,despite imitation beinga form of flattery.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY RANDY SHOULDN’T CLAIM TO BE A STUDENT. HE PAID FOR LESSONS AND GOT THEM. THAT IS WHAT DEFINES THE TERM “STUDENT” IN THIS USAGE OF THE WORD. OR ARE YOU SAYING FONG CLAIMS HE NEVER TAUGHT RANDY A THING OR ACCEPTED ANY MONEY, GIFTS OR TRIPS FROM RANDY?
Many folks have pictures with Fong-so what,
SO WHAT? SO NOT MANY HAVE AS MANY PICTURES AS RANDY HAS, TAKEN AT HIS HOME IN SINGAPORE AND LA SCHOOL, AS WELL AS IN THE IKF STUDIO. FOR THAT MATTER, NOT MANY NON-STUDENTS HAVE PICTURES STANDING, WITH FONG SEATED NEXT TO A HEAD-HIGH SIGNBOARD THAT READS “FONG’S WING CHUN” WEARING FONG’S WING CHUN TEE SHIRTS, TAKEN IN SINGAPORE. OR WITH THE SAME SIGNBOARD ALONG WITH 48 STUDENTS WEARING THE SAME SHIRTS AND WITH A BANNER IN THE BACKGROUND THAT READS, “WELCOME MASTER AUGUSTINE FONG”? OR ARE YOU SAYING THESE PHOTOS DON’T EXIST OR HAVE BEEN ALTERED?
For this reason- see Fong’s site on his
position on students. The certified and affiliated instructors are listed. End of story. Can we move on?
NO - WE CANNOT JUST MOVE ON. I PRESENTED RANDY’S POSITION ON HAVING BEEN CERTIFIED BY FONG IN 1988, AND I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CHECK WITH HIM AND THEN QUOTE HIM ON WHETHER OR NOT WHAT I SAID WAS TRUE. YOUR WORD IS NOT THE END-ALL BE-ALL FINAL PRONOUNCEMENT ON RANDY’S VERACITY ABOUT HAVING BEEN A FONG STUDENT. ONLY FONG HIMSELF CAN DENY THAT. OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING YOU ABOUT NO ONE SPEAKING OFFICIALLY FOR FONG ON THE NET?
OF COURSE RANDY IS NOT ON YOUR LIST OF CERTIFIED INSTRUCTORS. HE IS NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH FONG. BUT HE WAS IN 1988, WHETHER YOU CHOOSE TO BLINDLY DENY IT OR NOT.
Ip Man’ reputation has had problems with people saying that they learned from him. Same with the good ones in the next generation and similar claims continue on.
SPEAKING OF IP MAN, APPARENTLY THE IP MAN VTAA NEWSGROUP HAS A NUMBER OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY, AND EVEN MORE ABOUT FONG. AND I’VE SEEN YOUR RESPONSES. THEY ARE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THOSE YOU CRITICIZE FOR DEFENDING THEIR OWN SIFU’S.
- Fong is not on net lists- doesnt keep up with them and authorizes no one to represent him on xxxx chat.
THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?:
ALMOST LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE DEFENDING YOUR SIFU IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY. OR IS THAT SOMEONE ELSE I SEE ON THE NEWSGROUP DEFENDING FONG AGAINST WHAT MANY ARE CALLING “FAKE WING CHUN”, INCLUDING A NUMBER OF HO KAM MING DISCIPLES?
READERS, SEE FOR YOURSELVES:
7 RW has been around long enough and therefore is on his own..Yau was back in China the last I heard-long ways from learning from Fong’s slt book and working ina Phoenix Chinese restaurant kitchen.and ergo in the great market place :caveat emptor.
on any claimed traditional lineage issues.
WHAT DOES GEORGE YAU WORKING IN A CHINESE RESTAURANT HAVE TO DO WITH HIS SKILL-LEVEL? FONG IS OR WAS A MAILMAN AND HO KAM MING DID CATERING. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING REGARDING LINEAGE?
YES, CHINA IS A LONG WAY FROM PHOENIX AND “FONG’S SLT BOOK” - BUT DOESN’T THAT MAKE YAU’S POINT? THAT HE IS BACK IN CHINA, WHERE WC ORIGNATED, CONTINUING HIS STUDIES?
AND YES, RANDY IS ON HIS OWN. SO WHAT IS YOUR BIG PROBLEM WITH HIM?
And Tapman and co- dont bother folks- surely you have better things to do. Why not go your own way? Be happy.
QUIT PICKING FIGHTS AND I WON’T “BOTHER” YOU. DON’T EXPECT TO SPOUT OFF WHATEVER INSULTS AND NOT BE CHALLENGED ON IT.
AND ALSO, IN THE FUTURE, SINCE YOU ARE SO KNOWLEDGABLE, WHY NOT ADDRESS THE CONCRETE POINTS I MADE ABOVE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DIVERT THE ATTENTION TO OTHER ISSUES NOT IN QUESTION?
Tap Man Out
Tapman sez:SPEAKING OF IP MAN, APPARENTLY THE IP MAN VTAA NEWSGROUP HAS A NUMBER OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT YOU PERSONALLY, AND EVEN MORE ABOUT FONG. AND I’VE SEEN YOUR RESPONSES. THEY ARE NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THOSE YOU CRITICIZE FOR DEFENDING THEIR OWN SIFU’S.
((Bold letters all the way!! Shouting? Not good for your health.When I first came accross the VTAA I posted some civil responses under my own name. Then I gave up on them. There are people with fake identities and even assuming real people’s names and even borrowing fake identities. If you have seen my name there lately it isnt me.Guaranteed. Period. Good luck with your VTAA readings.
Yuanfen/joy chaudhuri)))
- Fong is not on net lists- doesnt keep up with them and authorizes no one to represent him on xxxx chat.
THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?:((Tap man asks))
(((Simple. 1. I am not Fong-I chose to check in on the forum.
2. this forum is more diverse than vtaa and sometimes there is sharing of information on wing chun across lines. Yuanfen/joy chaudhuri)))
((Finally- on all the rest of your questions.Long list. Have fun answering your own questions. Should keep you busy. Yuanfen/joy chaudhuri))
Just trying to clarify the points between us
WHILE YOU’RE COPPING OUT, WHY NOT IGNORE THESE QUESTIONS TOO?
BTW, I WRITE IN ALL CAPS TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSES FROM THOSE OF OTHERS.
LET ME REVIEW THE POINTS I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS:
-
RANDY WAS A STUDENT OF FONG’S AND HAS PLENTY OF VIDEO AND NEWSPAPER EVIDENCE TO BACK THAT STATEMENT UP. OR ARE YOU SAYING THE THINGS HE HAS ARE FORGERIES? PLEASE MAKE A CLEAR STATEMENT REGARDING YOUR POSITION ON THIS.
-
RANDY WAS CERTIFIED BY FONG IN 1988 TO TEACH FONG’S WING CHUN IN SINGAPORE. OR ARE YOU SAYING FONG DENIES EVER GIVING HIM THE CERTIFICATE?
-
RANDY PAID FOR WHAT HE GOT FROM FONG. OR ARE YOU SAYING FONG DID NOT ACCEPT ANY MONEY, TRIPS OR GIFTS FROM RANDY AT ANY TIME BETWEEN 1986 AND 1989 IN EXCHANGE FOR VIDEOS, BOOKS, SEMINARS AND PRIVATE TRAINING?
-
THE BOOKS WERE DONE WITH FONG’S FULL KNOWLEDGE AND HELP VIA TELEPHONE CRITIQUE AND ADDITIONS? OR ARE YOU SAYING FONG KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE BOOKS AND THEIR PRODUCTION UNTIL THEY WERE DONE?
-
FONG KNEW FULL WELL THAT RANDY WAS TEACHING UNDER HIS NAME AND DONATING ALL THE PROCEEDS TO THE SPASTIC CHILDREN’S FOUNDATION UNDER THE NAME “FONG’S WING CHUN SINGAPORE”. OR ARE YOU SAYING HE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THAT, AND DID NOT COMMENT ON THAT FACT ON SINGAPORE NATIONAL TELEVISION AND IN ITS OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER, THE STRAITS TIMES ON MAY 17, 1988, ALONG WITH THE “GOLDEN RIBBON BOXER” STORY?
-
FONG WENT IN TO IKF’S BURBANK OFFICES WITH RANDY IN 1986, SHOT PICS FOR AN ARTICLE AND MET WITH CURTIS WONG, INTRODUCING HIMSELF AND ALLOWING HIMSELF TO BE REFERRED TO AS RANDY’S SIFU. OR ARE YOU SAYING THAT NEVER HAPPENED?
-
FONG GAVE TELEVISION AND NEWSPAPER INTERVIEWS IN SINGAPORE CALLING RANDY ONE OF HIS TOP STUDENTS AND PRAISING HIS TEACHING AND CHARITY WORK IN SINGAPORE ON HIS BEHALF. OR ARE YOU SAYING HE DIDN’T GIVE THOSE INTERVIEWS AND SAY THOSE THINGS IN THE NEWSPAPER AND ON SBC TELEVISION IN MAY OF 1988?
-
RANDY HAS HOURS OF VIDEOTAPED INSTRUCTION FROM FONG IN LA AND SINGAPORE. OR ARE YOU SAYING THESE TAPES COULDN’T EXIST, BECAUSE RANDY NEVER HAD THOSE LESSONS BETWEEN 1986 AND 1989?
PLEASE MAKE YOURSELF CLEAR ON THOSE POINTS, AND THEN WE WILL RELEASE THE PROOF NECESSARY TO REFUTE YOUR DENIALS IN A PEACEFUL AND DIGNIFIED MANNER.
FINALLY, PLEASE ADDRESS THE MAIN POINT I AM MAKING - WHAT IS IT THAT FONG WANTS FROM RANDY IN ORDER TO END THIS DISCUSSION ONCE AND FOR ALL? AS I SAID BEFORE, WE WILL COMPLY WITH ANYTHING WITHIN REASON. OTHERWISE WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE THIS ENDLESS DEBATE. WE JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING MOTIVATION FOR THE REPEATED ATTACKS.
Tap Man Out
Well Done Tapman!!!
Tap,
Great job on the rebuttal, bro!!! It will be interesting to read his response. I am really interested to know how these guys maintain the skills with all this net time??? Alot of wasted energy…
Can we get a virtual body fat test for these dudes??
randy williams
Then why does Fong have a picture of Randy hanging in his studio next to his other students? Ya know rather than wasting time bashing a leader in W.C. why not make good use your chi power, just like we have, to address the erronous comments made of "your sifu’, go to http://www.vingtsun.com.hk/forum/treplies.asp?message=1618&all=True
CAPS Man
Dear Tap Man,
TAP MAN. Why are you posting here asking what Augustine Fong wants? You can just go to his website, and email him directly.
http://www.fongswingchun.com/
E-mail: fong@fongswingchun.com
(520) 747-9553
The bottom line appears to be that Mr Fong does not consider Mr Williams to be a student of his. In martial arts it is the perrogative of the teacher to decide who he considers to be a formal student or representative of his. And it is his perrogative to sever such a relationship, just as the student can end his relationship with his teacher and move on to another.
Those kinds of events happen all the time with students and teachers and in the Wing Chun community. You can see evidence of it within some of the larger Wing Chun organizations, with various people leaving, being thrown out etc. etc.
How long has it been since these two ended whatever relationship there was between them?
Besides the point that from a Wing Chun perspective George Yau was Randy’s first Wing Chun teacher–therefore only he can be considered Randy’s teacher, unless Randy severed his relationship with Mr Yau and performed Bai Si or whatever Mr Fong considers his formal initiation into his federation.
Instead of Randy’s students responding to these things wanting to lash out and beat up people, just move on. Randy seems to have done so and even is learning other arts from other teachers.
Next time you see Ted Wong ask him about Bruce’s words of “WALK ON”, because coming on this forum and hosing it down with testosterone as you and “Muay Chun” etc. have done, have not made any points other than just demonstrating a propensity for acting out via threats of violence.
Randy Williams is lucky
to have such loyal students. however I think we need to remember that this is not the VTAA. The forum there is unmoderated, and as far as I know has no ID verification. KFQ’s forum is lightly moderated with some ID control and a much nicer interface. THERE IS NO NEED HERE TO USE ALL CAPS TO DISTIGUISH YOUR COMMENTS, except maybe in a qoute/answer situation.(note the nice, two color setting) also threads like the ones you reffernce are rare things here as they should be, they do little but rise the ire of our fellows and close off good discusion.
My only question is what repeated attacks? AFAIK there was one rumour stated, threats ensued, there was a breif disscusion on if the romour spreading was unfair, and now we have some five threads with the same title. Randy Williams sounds like a great guy, I look forward to an oportunity to train or practice with him or his students. Should I get one, I won’t squander it picking apart his liniage.
I have met Sifu Fong on one occasion, and if I do so again RW will be the last thing on my mind. I’m more amazed at the way he can move.
Randy Williams
Once again we find the wing chun cyber fighters posting pathetic attacks on Sifu Randy Williams in an attempt to soil his reputation. If these guys dedicated as much of their time to the study, exploration and promotion of the wing chun system, they would also be known foer their contribution to the system. But no, the most training they participate in is training their biu jee on the keyboards of computers, they would be known for their contribution to the art.
Why is it that these people regularly appear on forums etc trying to discredit Sifu Randy Williams? What is their motivation? Randy and his students world wide are content continuing their training and keeping clear of the political aspects of the martial arts. Yet when Randy is slandered and his students defend him, they claim they are being threatened and bullied.
Having trained under several teachers of wing chun, I can honestly say that Randy definitely has done the research and hard work in his study and exploration of wing chun. Each time I have been priviledged to train with Randy during his visits to Australia, I have been astounded at the research and further investigation he has done. To
Fot those who have viewed or purchased Randy’s first series of books, it is clearly stated wth whom he has trained. In all my dealings with him he has always spoken well of others and refuses to be drawn into political bull****. That is simply an example of the quality of the man.
Let me point out to those out there who persist in slandering Randy Williams and attempting to tarnish his name and reputation this; Randy Williams has documented and recorded his interpretation of the wing chun system. His dedication to producing informative and quality material is allowing those interested in his Close Range Combat Academy wing chun to see his interpretation. Those who study with Randy or at one of his schools choose to do because they like the man and his approach to wing chun. He does not claim to be a grandmaster or some holder of a remote title. But for some strange and unknown reason, these pathetic individuals continue trying to cause problems. Just get on with your life guys and train. It is the only way to improve.
again
no one here is attacking, discrediting or slandering Randy Williams.
Attack’s and the “Threatening Email” Part 1
FIRST OFF, I WILL CONTINUE TO TYPE IN ALL CAPS, NOT TO SHOUT, BUT TO MAKE MY POSTS VERY EASILY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ALL OTHERS.
YOU SAY THERE ARE NO ATTACKS, SLANDER OR ATTEMPTS TO DISCREDIT RANDY HERE. I’M NOT SURE WHAT YOU CONSIDER ATTACKING OR DISCREDITING, THEN.
I WILL AGREE ABOUT SLANDER, SINCE “LIBEL” WOULD BE THE CORRECT TERM THAT WOULD BE USED IN ANY ENSUING LAWSUITS.
HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF ATTACK, ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT AND LIBEL:
GRENDEL:
quote: Originally posted by rubthebuddha
last i heard, randy was adding other arts to his arsenal
Other arts to his arsenal? In addition to…what?
WE CALL THIS AN ATTACK. IT CLEARLY IMPLIES RANDY HAS NO SKILLS WHATSOEVER. THAT’S FINE TO SAY, BUT WHY BE SO INDIGNANT WHEN ASKED FOR A FIGHT TO PROVE YOUR OWN SKILLS? OTHER SYSTEMS FIGHT ALL THE TIME. THEY GET OUT THERE AND LET THEIR HANDS DO THE TALKING. EVEN WC HAS THE TERM “GOANG SAU”. YOU FONG BOYS, SHOULD LOOK AT FONG’S OWN BOOK, WHERE HE REGALES THE READER WITH TALES OF HOW HE DEFENDED HKM’S SCHOOL IN HK AND BECAME KNOWN AS THE “GOLDEN RIBBON BOXER”. FOR SOME REASON, IT WAS OK - NO, HONORABLE, BRAVE AND HEROIC - THAT YOUNG MASTER FONG STOOD UP FOR HIS MASTER AND FOUGHT A CHALLENGER IN A NO-HOLDS-BARRED FIGHT. FOR MORE DETAILS ON THE “GOLDEN RIBBON” FIGHT, SEE BELOW, OR GO TO THE VTAA, WHERE IT WILL BE UNDER REVIEW SHORTLY. OR SEE THE STRAITS TIMES AND SBC NEWS REPORTS OF MAY, 1988, WHERE FONG EXPOUNDS ON HIS OPPONENT STILL BEING IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL AS A RESULT OF THE BEATING FONG PUT ON HIM. IS THIS A CASE OF THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK? BTW - FONG HAD SEEN HKM THE WEEK BEFORE, BECAUSE RANDY SENT HIM AND HIS WIFE TO HK ON AN ALL-EXPENSE-PAID TRIP. BUT YOU SAY RANDY WAS NOT A STUDENT. WE SAY HE WAS. NOT “IS” A STUDENT, OR “IS A REGULAR STUDENT”. WAS A STUDENT. IS THAT WHAT THIS DEBATE IS REALLY ABOUT? RANDY DOESN’T SAY HE IS A STUDENT. OR IS A “REGULAR STUDENT” (JOY’S TERM - NOT OURS). HE SAYS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO SAY, HE WAS A FONG STUDENT.
EDWARD
even funnier was the b.s. story he told inside kung fu on how they met…
seriously he should come out with his own harry potter books, since he has such a good imagination
that’s pretty on the nose as far as what happened…
dont’ forget randy’s great story on IKF, as to how they met… a young randy williams one day was working on the wooden dummy… then as fate would have it a chinese guy was walking along and heard someone hitting the dummy with profound power and clarity… it was of course augustine fong who happened to wonder, who could this chosen one be…bwhwahahah
shot.. if randy w. is going to use that story.. then I met sifu fong, during the 80’s..yeah, that’s it… i was at a high school dance, dressed up in a shower curtain, and i ended up dancing with some guys girlfriend…and ended up putting a hose on him while he was in the bathroom stall.. obviously this ****ed him off, and i ran out while him and his buddies, who were dressed up in skelteon suits for the halloween danced chased me down on the bike… they caught up with and started to beat on me… while i could barely see what was going on… and old man came out of no where and beat them up…(if your wondering where this came from …duh.. Karate kid)…hehehehe
THIS IS SO OFF-THE-MARK, IT’S LAUGHABLE. HOWEVER, IT IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF A LIBELOUS STATEMENT. AND EDWARD SHOULD BE READY TO SUPPORT HIS STATEMENT WITH FACTS WHEN HE IS CALLED TO ACCOUNT FOR IT. SEE MY PREVIOUS POSTING, WHERE I RESPONDED TO EDWARD, AND GOT NO REPLY.
ROB WOLF
ok guys,
Check it out, Randy williams teacher was george Yau and randy visited Sifu Fongs school in the 80’s at the request or Sifu yau, the reason being to learn the weapons of Wing chun from Sifu Fong as yau had not learned bot jam do or lok dim boon guan,at any rate, I myself have done chi sau with both randy and his teacher George Yau .Having said that,Most of the material in randys books and videos was taken directly from Fongs Book series and early video of the system refered to by some as the gold label Fong video, now, I was present for all of randys visit and he learned the hand forms and 108 from students that he could weasel them from in a kinda I’ll show you mine if you show you yours fashion, I was freinds with another george yau student named kenny chen and I can say for sure ,there was alot of stealing going on at that time…randy was here for less than two weeks and had a JKD friend with him and they both were intent on also getting our 108 mok yan jong while they were in tucson…ok got it? and later randy flew Sifu Fong to Singapore for a seminar and that was the end of their contact with one another after that…anymore questions ?I think not,…but think about it really…at the end of the day, Randy got what he came for , the outline of a complete system of Wing Chun,Yeh? He may have been an overnight blunderwonder, but the fact remains he stole it, published it and makes money off it,kinda sucks yes…where is he now???hiding I imagine…Rob
WHICH PART OF THIS DON’T YOU SEE AS AN ATTACK, ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT, OR LIBEL? HE CALLS IT A FACT THAT RANDY STOLE. AGAIN, IS ROB IS READY TO PROVE THAT STATEMENT AS FACT?
PATRICK GORDON
I would like to know what happened during his visit to sigung Ho’s? All I’ve heard was that after Randy left, Sigung Ho phoned Sifu Fong to complain about what sifu Fong was teaching his students because Randy stated to be a student under him. Sigung Ho thought his skills were horrible and wondered what the hell Fong was teaching. I am sure there is more to the story.
I don’t mean to start up old news, it is long over with. Besides, Randy doesn’t mention Sifu Fong anymore and he is now doing Jeet Kune Do with Ted Wong. Aside from his forms, he is quite different from Sifu Fong’s students understanding and practice. Sifu Fong’s Wing Chun evolves, what Randy got was very little.
AND THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS MADE IN SPITE OF THE FACT (HE ACKNOWLEDGED TO ME IN A PRIVATE E-MAIL THAT HE STARTED) THAT HE HAD PERSONALLY ASKED HKM WHAT HAPPENED, AND ACCORDING TO HIM, HKM “DIDN’T EVEN REMEMBER RANDY”. SO WHY THEN POST THAT DAMAGING RUMOR WHEN YOU ALREADY KNOW FULL WELL IT’S NOT TRUE? OR AT LEAST HAVE MENTIONED THE SECOND PART SO THE READERS AREN’T LEFT WONDERING IF IT MIGHT BE? WE CALL THAT LIBEL.
JOY:
- This is not the first or the last time that someone who shoulnt -claims he wasa student,despite imitation beinga form of flattery.
Many folks have pictures with Fong-so what, For this reason- see Fong’s site on his
position on students. The certified and affiliated instructors are listed. End of story. Can we move on? Ip Man’ reputation has had problems with people saying that they learned from him. Same with the good ones in the next generation and similar claims continue on.
SEE MY MANY POSTS IN WHICH I LITERALLY BOMBARD JOY WITH EVIDENCE HE MAINLY IGNORES AND REFUSES TO ADDRESS.
JOY (REPLIES BY TPARKERKFO)
- Although I don’t hold anything against Williams for wanting to put out material. It is also natural that he would put out what he was taught.
((Here we go again… he isnt and wasnt a regular student of Fong… am I clear enough? Two weekends, invite him for a seminar, call him on the [hone and have pictures taken with him-
doesnt make hima student of Fong. Just remember Tom- you-not I are vringing this up again. I have misplaceda picture with Jack dempsey in his NYC resraurant- does that make me a student of Dempsey?))
I have only one Fong Book, which is a rather simple picture book. Not much writting.
((So? At that time there were not many books on the slt etc))
But I have heard there is another series, though I could be wrong.
((Point being?))
In any case, Plagerism is plagerism.
((Surely… a rose is a rose is a rose))
SINCE YOU GUYS LOVE TO THROW THE TERM “PLAGIARISM” AROUND SO MUCH, YOU MIGHT WANT TO LEARN HOW TO SPELL IT. IT’S A VERY SERIOUS CHARGE TO MAKE AGAINST SOMEONE IN A PUBLIC FORUM. WOULD YOU GUYS BE PREPARED TO DEFEND YOUR CASE FOR MAKING THIS STATEMENT IN A COURT OF LAW? WHEN THE NEW LAW COMES INTO EFFECT, THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF CASES TO BE MADE REGARDING LIBEL ON THE INTERNET, SO CHOOSE YOUR BATTLES WISELY.
Attack’s and the “Threatening Email” Part 2
AS FAR AS YOUR OBSERVATIONS ON FONG’S BOOK THAT RANDY SUPPOSEDLY PLAGIARIZED, BRAVO, TOM! NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMEWHERE. I HAVE SEEN RANDY’S SIGNED COPY OF THE BOOK, IN WHICH FONG HANDWROTE ALL OF THE CHINESE CHARACTERS OVER THE INDIVIDUAL SLT AND CK PICS FOR RANDY IN CHINESE WHILE HE WAS STAYING AT RANDY’S HOME IN SINGAPORE. BTW, HE DID THAT TO HELP WITH THE GLOSSARY OF TERMS IN THE BOOK SERIES HE KNEW RANDY WAS PREPARING AT THE TIME AS A PRACTICE RUN FOR A NEW FONG SERIES. FONG’S SLT/CK COMBO BOOK THAT I BELIEVE YOU REFER TO IS 135 PAGES LONG WITH ABOUT 20 PAGES OF TEXT (AND INCLUDES THE FAMOUS “GOLDEN RIBBON BOXER” STORY ON PAGES 8 AND 9) AND THE REST ARE FORM PHOTOS WITH DESCRIPTIVE CAPTIONS. EVER SEEN RANDY’S BOOK 1 ON SLT OR BOOK 2 ON CK? TAKE A LOOK AT THEM FOR YOURSELF AND YOU WILL SEE OBVIOUS SIMILARITIES (WHY WOULDN’T THERE BE? RANDY WAS FOLLOWING FONG’S METHOD AT THAT TIME), BUT YOU WILL SEE A LOT MORE FLESHED OUT TEXT OVER TWO VOLUMES TO COVER THE SAME MATERIAL. RANDY MAINTAINS THAT THIS TEXT WAS AT LEAST PARTIALLY CORRECTED, ADDED OR SUGGESTED BY FONG IN 1988.
FONG’S DUMMY BOOK IS 98 PAGES WITH 13 PAGES OF TEXT AND THE REST IS COMPRISED OF FORM PHOTOS AND CAPTIONS - NO APPLICATIONS. RANDY’S BOOK 3 ON THE DUMMY IS QUITE DIFFERENT. CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF. FONG’S BIU JEE BOOK HAS 102 PAGES, 20 OF WHICH ARE TEXT AND THE REST FORM PHOTOS AND CAPTIONS - AGAIN, NO APPLICATIONS. NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM TO SAY IT IS BETTER, BUT RANDY’S BIU JEE BOOK IS 235 PAGES LONG. MY POINT BEING, IF HE PLAGIARIZED FONG’S BOOKS, HE CERTAINLY MUST HAVE ADDED SOMETHING TO EACH ALONG THE WAY.
IN FONG’S SERIES, THERE IS ALSO A 76-PAGE THEORY BOOK. MOSTLY TEXT AND DIAGRAMS, WITH MORE ABOUT THE “GOLDEN RIBBON BOXER” ON PAGE 3. THE CHINESE WISDOM FOUND IN THAT BOOK WAS ADMITTEDLY USED BY RANDY IN HIS BOOKS, AND HE MAINTAINS THAT THAT WAS DONE WITH FONG’S FULL KNOWLEDGE AND PERMISSION. BUT WITH MAINLY NEW TRANSLATIONS INTO ENGLISH.
IN FACT, IT WAS RANDY’S SHOWING OF THESE BOOKS (AND PARTICULARLY THE CHINESE WISDOM IN BOOK 7 AND THE “GOLDEN RIBBON BOXER” STORY IN EACH BOOK) TO HO KAM MING THAT FATEFUL DAY IN 1989 THAT SET THESE STILL-DESTRUCTIVE WHEELS INTO MOTION. AND THAT IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THAT STORY. THE REST MAY END UP BEING POSTED ON ANOTHER NEWSGROUP SOON. RANDY FEELS IT IS ABOUT TIME FONG CALLED OFF THE DOGS AND LET HIM BE. HIS PENANCE HAS BEEN SERVED FOR WHATEVER WRONG HE DID FONG, AND HE FEELS THAT FONG SHOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND GET HIS STUDENTS TO DROP THE ATTACKS. FONG KNOWS THEY ARE UNWARRANTED. BUT IF THE MESSAGE CONTINUES TO BE ACCUSING RANDY OF THEFT, LYING AND PLAGIARISM, THEN THE GLOVES ARE COMING OFF (SO TO SPEAK).
ONE OF MY SO-CALLED “THREATS” TO PATRICK AND THE OTHERS HAS BEEN THAT THEY WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY POST ON A PUBLIC FORUM. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN I POINTED OUT THE LAPSE IN PATRICK’S LOGIC, I ASKED FOR A RETRACTION AND APOLOGY. HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WHEN HE POSTED THAT REMARK. I DON’T SEE WHY THAT’S SUCH A THREAT, AND OTHERS SHOULDN’T FEEL THREATENED UNLESS THEY KNOW THEY CAN’T SUBSTANTIATE WHAT THEY HAVE WRITTEN.
AUGUSTINE FONG - THE “GOLDEN RIBBON” BOXER OF MACAU
As it appears in each volume of Augustine Fong’s 1983 book series
Augustine Fong was born in Macao, southern China. Since his early childhood, he has always had a special interest in the martial arts. In 1960, he was fortunate enough to begin training in a traditional gung fu stylem, Wing Chun. His instructor was the honorable Wing Chun Master (Si-Fu) Ho Kam Ming. Master Ho, an intimate disciple of the late Grand Master Yip man, introduced this particular style in macao at that time. Without a second thought, Augustine Fong became one of the first students there.
Master Ho’s school had already grown considerably by 1964. In fact, his school’s presence had become so notable that an eminent gung fu school in Hong Kong sent a formal challenge. In those days challenges had such serious consequences that one’s school would lose face for failing to meet and/or to win a similar challenge. It was known that the opposing school had fought and won over one hundred contests in this manner and, as a result, had defeated a number of prominent schools in Hong Kong.
Accepting the written challenge, Master Ho decided that Fong, his most skilled student, would defend the school’s honor. On the specified day, the challenging school arrived in Macao, represented by their master and ten students. Out of respect, the challenging school’s master was appointed to act as the referee. It was determined that the match would consist of three rounds, and the only rule was that neither participant could step outside of the prescribed fighting area. Fong dominated his designated opponent during the fight and soundly overcame the challenger. Master Ho’s school, through Fong’s victory, had defended the school’s name. Consequently, Fong became well-known throughout Macao and Hong Kong. In Macao, he is still referred to as Wing Chun’s “Gum-Pai Da-Sau” or “Golden Ribbon Boxer.” Following this incident the reputation of Master Ho’s school spread, and interest in Wing Chun increased steadily.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY DETAILS ABOUT THIS FIGHT – WHO THE OPPONENTS WERE, WHAT STYLE, WHO ELSE THEY HAD BEATEN BEFORE THEY WENT TO SIFU HO’S SCHOOL, OTHER STUDENTS THAT WERE THERE, ETC?
Tap Man Out
This thread makes everyone look bad. Unfortunately, it’s happened several times over the years, and the students never seem to learn. You see, you all (the students), are making your sifu(s) look far worse than anyone else. Since its happened so often, over the years various people from the Ho, Fong, and Williams lineages have contacted me (and others) and offered their versions. IMHO, based on these candid exchanges, none of the parties involved come off looking particularly good. None of them. Yet, students of these people, who themselves are at least wise enough to not air their laundry in public, perpetuate it in a viscious cycle.
I’m sure you all love and believe in your sifu’s, and think its your duty to correct what you think are slights against them, but its a viscious cycle, and one that y’all engage in to your own detriment.
There are enough anti-Fong and anti-Williams threads on the disgracefull former VTAA board. No need for them here. Do yourselves a favor, let go of the pride, passion, and predice, and stick to discussing the art. Better to be thought of poorly than to open your collective mouths and prove it.
Just my 2c., probably worth less, and due to human nature, I’m almost certain is bouncing off deaf ears.
RR
Rene- I dont particularly care what you heard from whom
but your other points on ending this pointelss series is well taken.
Debating this thing on lists and forums is pointelss.
Rene- I dont particularly care what you heard from whom
but your other points on ending this pointelss series is well taken.
Debating this thing on lists and forums is pointelss.
Still looking for answers!
JOY,
I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE POINTS I HAVE MADE REPEATEDLY.
BY THE WAY, ANDY INFO YOU CAN GIVE ON FONG’S BIG “GOLDEN RIBBON BOXER” DEFENSE OF HO KAM MING?
Tap Man Out
Hi Pot
I STILL SEE BOTH ISSUES AS THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. IF THEY ARE SAYING GEORGE YAU DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING OR LEARN THE ENTIRE SYSTEM FROM AN ACCREDITED SOURCE, LET THEM SAY IT AND WE WILL RESPOND. WHEN THE WHOLE THING PLAYS OUT, YOU WILL SEE THAT BOTH ARGUMENTS WILL POINT BACK TO THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS WHOLE MESS. THE TRUE “EMPEROR WITH NO CLOTHES” AS FONG’S BOYS LIKE TO ANALOGIZE.
Tap Man Out
This continual exchange will soon start to make the Cheung/Boztepe and Draheim/Mazza episodes look (more) like honourable disputes between gentlemen.
Golden Ribbon Boxers? The Gay Games just finshed in my city recently, I think I saw a few of those in the opening ceremony. 
Best wishes to HKM, Augustine Fong, and Randy Williams. The only beef I have with any of them is that they allow their students to make them look bad by undertaking pointless and juvenile arguments on internet forums. A few well placed kicks to the a$$es of various loose-liiped students wuold go a long way.
In the immortal words of Rodney King …