Why don’t you tell that to “Professor” Carlson Gracie?
Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.
[QUOTE=anerlich;732611]Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.[/QUOTE]
DOH!!! LOL!!! 
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;732568]
Why don’t you tell that to “Professor” Carlson Gracie? .[/QUOTE]
Professor is the portugese word for teacher. It means the same as Sensei in Japanese. Its not a grandiose unsubstantiated title like ‘Master’.
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;732568]
And if you think challenges and intimidation aren’t in MMA, then I’d question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.[/QUOTE]
Sure they go on. But unlike in WC people actually go through with them rather than mouth off on the internet ad nauseum.
[QUOTE=Savi;732610]
2. in the case of Robert Chu, I highly doubt that (considering his history of interactions with other kung fu Sifu, and unscrupulous sense for etiquette) he deserves anything from HFY at all. So demand all you want about “INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE” until your head pops off. A bank won’t approve a loan to someone with a terrible credit history, and Robert’s got a few bankruptcies.
[/QUOTE]
Robert seems to be voicing the same concerns that any right thinking critical indivdiual without an agenda have when opinions are presented as indisputable facts (that WC comes from the southern shaolin temple, that HFY preserves that WC in its pure unadulterated form today as it was then, and that all other wc is diluted and watered down).
At the very least HFY seems to suffer from the same problem as TWC namely how come it looks nothing like the other lineages from China e.g. Gulao, YKS, Cheung Bo, Leung Jan etc. All of which use narrow pigeon toed horses and favour a more back weighted stance.
All of the personal attacks seem to me an attempt to divert attention away from the real issues raised. A classic case of ‘if you cant attack the argument you have to attack the credibility of the person saying it’. The most absurd seems to be that he charged 1000 dollars for lessons. I make that 100 dollars an hour for 10 hours. Whats the BFD? Thats about the going rate for private lessons (albeit at the pricier end of the market).
What if it shows Robert Chu saying a lot of negative things about other lineages. Can you accept that?
It’s almost a requirement to be a WC practitioner. For example, a considerable number of Benny’s posts on hfy108. And trash talking by all and sundry on here.
The TWC, my lineage, grandmaster is the king of lineage bashers, although Benny seems to be trying real hard to catch up, though I doubt he’d have the stones to openly put his lineage above all others at a VTAA conference like William Cheung did.
Do I like it? Not really. Can I accept it? **** Yeah. He’s just another egotist who can’t help himself. Lot of that in MA. He’s no saint, but **** he can fight. Only fools take all that mouth boxing seriously. Or walk a linguistic tightrope that says their Sifu’s trashtalking isn’t, when any fool can see that it is.
And yes, William Cheung got ambushed. 1986. Then, we had Mazza/Draheim in 1996. That was initiated by trash talking on usenet (can you spell “deja vu”?). Both Emin and Draheim later admitted they had allowed themself to be used by their seniors and apologised for that. Anyone considering “defending their Sifu’s honour” in this latest downward spiral in 2007 (it should be once every decade or thereabouts, so we might even be a little overdue) needs to ensure they do not ignore the lessons of history, and that they too do not allow themselves to be used or drawn into what will be seen later as one of the nadirs of WC. Yeah, you’ll get famous … for all the wrong reasons.
You’re not a warrior monk trained by some WC saint, you’re just another loser on the web. Face it. Get a life.
And if you think challenges and intimidation aren’t in MMA, then I’d question how much genuine exposure you really have to it.
Pro boxing and pro wrestling would wither up and die without it. That’s hardly revelatory.
[QUOTE=anerlich;732611]Since he unfortunately died recently, that might be difficult.[/QUOTE]
Excuses, excuses 
[QUOTE=anerlich;732641]Pro boxing and pro wrestling would wither up and die without it. That’s hardly revelatory.[/QUOTE]
Right - the point being that Terence is somehow promoting that if you are a real fighter somehow you reach this nirvana point where none of that ever matters, and you drift along in the clouds serenely getting tapped out by Helio’s floating head and doing the two-step with Pat Miletich.
[QUOTE=Nick Forrer;732636]Professor is the portugese word for teacher. It means the same as Sensei in Japanese. Its not a grandiose unsubstantiated title like ‘Master’.[/QUOTE]
If you think that ‘Professor’ isn’t a grandiose title, then I’d say put down what you’re smoking.
Guys,
Don’t start bashing Terence because he promotes real training. The FACT… if you want to be able to say that you can TRULY defend yourself then you have to KNOW you can from EXPERIENCE in non-compliant hard training. If all you do is Chi Sau, SLT and some light WC vs WC “sparring” you are not truly testing yourself. Use your heads! WCK is the “thinking persons” art which I would think intelligent people with even small levels of common sense would know that you “Train how you fight, fight how you train.” If you aren’t training with the intensity of a Miletich, Gracie or your basic boxing gym then what the heck are you doing and who do you think you’re fooling?
Come on WCK’ers… less talk, more do… in other words Mo Gong Kau, Gong Sau! peace out 
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;732648]If you think that ‘Professor’ isn’t a grandiose title, then I’d say put down what you’re smoking.[/QUOTE]
Its portugese…it translates as ‘teacher’…it doesnt have the same meaning as it does in English i.e. head of a university faculty…so no its not a grandiose title…unlike master.
Do I have to explain it again or did it sink in that time?
[QUOTE=leejunfan;732649]Guys,
Don’t start bashing Terence because he promotes real training. The FACT… if you want to be able to say that you can TRULY defend yourself then you have to KNOW you can from EXPERIENCE in non-compliant hard training. If all you do is Chi Sau, SLT and some light WC vs WC “sparring” you are not truly testing yourself. Use your heads! WCK is the “thinking persons” art which I would think intelligent people with even small levels of common sense would know that you “Train how you fight, fight how you train.” If you aren’t training with the intensity of a Miletich, Gracie or your basic boxing gym then what the heck are you doing and who do you think you’re fooling?
Come on WCK’ers… less talk, more do… in other words Mo Gong Kau, Gong Sau! peace out [/QUOTE]
Don’t misread me here. I am not bashing Terence becuase he promotes “alive” training. I agree with him. Although he is a bit too much on the SPAR…derrrrr…SPAR…drooolll…SPAR side and thinks that will both produce skill and promote world peace, he is a known entity on that extreme side that is probably necessary to balance out a WCK world that has been too filled with the attitude exactly you’re talking about.
However, when it comes to history, I do not agree with him or many on this forum. I think that there is a double standard with this “independantly verifiable evidence” talk. I think there are plenty of WCK lineages that have far less REAL evidence than you think. Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say “what does that prove?” and “there’s no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from”. TWC has an unsubstantiated history that GM Cheung presents, but he has nowhere near the amount of mouth-breathing going on about that you see here. Many other lines have far less to go on than a couple pictures and stories.
I get that a lot of this is backlash from the MKF book presenting a certain viewpoint on history and doing some contrasting to “Popular WC”. (Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you’re referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages). However, I’ve heard VTM presentations on history a number of times, and I’ve never heard anything like presenting it like absolute fact - more like “this is what we think based upon research”. The research done if you look at it really isn’t a whole lot different from other types of lineage research (anthropology based). There are artifacts, hands-on exchanges to look for sets, training methods, concepts (terms), systems. And there’s some filling in of the gaps, just like you would read in any book that is about lineages or groups of people we don’t know a whole lot about (like the Native Americans of 1000-1400AD in North America). In general, MKF is a more detailed thorough handling of WCK than I’ve seen out there published. Maybe there are more people out there doing research too - good, the more the better. The fewer the historians you have the less complete a picture you have.
There seems to be a group outside of HFY that has run into a Hung Suen WCK group that was trained by GM Gee’s sihing in China or HK. Instead of anyone asking Firehawk where he heard about this, instantly we have demands for “provide the address of the school” or it’s not “independantly verifiable”. Sheesh - with all you mouth-breathers out there, if I did have “independantly verifiable evidence” type artifacts personally, I’d keep them away from you drooling on them for general principles. There are photos mentioned, and probably “indoor” artifacts that won’t be made public. I think MKF has phrases from a kuen kuit recorded in it that are unique. At this point, we don’t know much about the Hung Suen group at all.
[QUOTE=Nick Forrer;732652]Its portugese…it translates as ‘teacher’…it doesnt have the same meaning as it does in English i.e. head of a university faculty…so no its not a grandiose title…unlike master.
Do I have to explain it again or did it sink in that time?[/QUOTE]
Dude - whatever. Sifu is a similar term literally. However, “Professor” is used by the Brazilians over is it 5th degree BB or something? It’s spelled in English, not Portugese (sifu is not an English word). So when someone sees it on a BJJ web site, do you think it’s not marketing related or calculated to sound grandiose?
Master is a term distinguishing some sifu from others who have been teaching longer and have students that are sifus. GM is usually the lineage holder. In WCK pretty much all the lineages that have an organization use that term. Some, like TWC, have actual rankings with that title “provisional master”, “master”, etc.
It’s just a traditional martial art thing versus a modern martial art thing.
Good post, Wayfaring.
…
And Andrew…jeez…this is friggin’ hilarious:
“You’re not a warrior monk trained by some WC saint, you’re just another loser on the web. Face it. Get a life.”
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Will make this post here (even though it also pertains to a different current thread).
THERE’S WAAAAY TOO MUCH “talk” about history, about lineages, about who’s a Master and who’s a nobody, etc.
Let your hands and feet do the talking.
As I posted on the other thread - I don’t have the time anymore to organize a wing chun tournament venue, due to other commitments - but I certainly would support one/train students to participate/attend the event myself as a spectator.
BUT WE NEED AN ONGOING SPARRING TOURNAMENT VENUE…in order to keep things HONEST.
Isn’t that what this is really all about? All these internet wars…occasional once-every-ten-year flareups, etc. It’s about the fact that without having to SHOW what you can do on a fairly regular basis (ie.- organized SPARRING tournaments that occur say every 4 to 6 months)…
it’s just too easy for people to PLAY GAMES with other people’s heads.
And then all the “alleged” Masters, Sifus, Experts, Curators, etc. will be exposed - and those who really deserve to have “titles” and get respect will do so.
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;732655] Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say “what does that prove?” and “there’s no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from”. [/QUOTE]
What do you mean by
“there’s no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from?”
Evidentally,
1, the YiK Kam SLT Kuen Kuit and moves which was posted matches with the Fujian White Crane Weng Chun clasical writing before 1850. Also if one is interested in it one could check with the Fujian’s White Crane Weng Chun authority masters such as Li Kang in HongKong, PAn Sifu of Fujian.
2 ,the YiK Kam SLT Kuen Kuit and moves which was posted has been presented by Jim to the Gate Holder of Emei 12 Zhuang, or GM Fu. and got acknowledge it is Emei’s components, in additional to it matches with the Emei 12 Zhuang’s writing.
So, the White Crane of Fujian and The Emei (snake) has been contatcted directly to the sources to varify the likely or possibility of the proposal by Yik Kam’s Kuen Kuit and writing. The Crane from Fujian and Snake from Emei. and They got varified. and the Answer is it is very very very very very very very Likely. That is how the SLT got invented by fusing the White Crane of the Fujian and “Snake” of Emei.
BTW. Cho family and YKS family also share the same history view.
Thus, the kuen kuit, the history could be varified within WCK and outside of WCK.
Not to mention, the involvement of Yik Kam WCK in 1850 uprising also was could be varified in the history of Lee Man Mao and the Shang Hai uprising which still has evidents sit in the Dien Chun Dang of Shang hai today.
Now, that is how specific we have gone.
Now, looking at the Shao Lin proposal. Tell us which Shao Lin as specific as the above research? Tell us who in Shao Lin which authority masters could give endosement to the proposal and confirm SLT is a creation of shao lin elements ?
Show us? otherwise, what you propose is a theory without evidents.
See, I am not challenging anyone but willing to examine every possibility. However, in the mission of research, one has to rely on track able sources and evidents instead of speculate and then called that a truth.
In the mean time, my concern about Shao Lin theory is can anyone even identify which Shao Lin? Where? and what components? if not, how could one make conclusion on "others is “popular” and “I am the…”?
Doesnt make sense.
Peace
[QUOTE=Wayfaring;732655]Don’t misread me here. I am not bashing Terence becuase he promotes “alive” training. I agree with him. Although he is a bit too much on the SPAR…derrrrr…SPAR…drooolll…SPAR side and thinks that will both produce skill and promote world peace, he is a known entity on that extreme side that is probably necessary to balance out a WCK world that has been too filled with the attitude exactly you’re talking about.[/QUOTE]
I can accept that criticism – although not the part about world peace – and it can seem that is all I think anyone should ever do. Of course, there is more to training than sparring but that stuff gets enough attention already.
However, when it comes to history, I do not agree with him or many on this forum. I think that there is a double standard with this “independantly verifiable evidence” talk. I think there are plenty of WCK lineages that have far less REAL evidence than you think. Hendrick posts characters / pics of a kuen kuit that probably could be spin doctored to say “what does that prove?” and “there’s no independantly verifiable evidence where that came from”. TWC has an unsubstantiated history that GM Cheung presents, but he has nowhere near the amount of mouth-breathing going on about that you see here. Many other lines have far less to go on than a couple pictures and stories.
As far as I’m concerned, there is no double standard – the same standard of proof applies to all. I’ve made the same complaints about Hendrik’s “theory” (which he too calls “fact”) on Rene’s forum. We just have to accept that if things can’t be proved, then they remain unproven. And while you may not see much stuff about TWC now, years ago when the claims were being made, there was lots of “discussion”. Today, these things have pretty much been ironed out and even most of the die-hard TWC practitioners don’t swallow Cheung’s account.
One of the real problems is that the VTM, which promotes itself as this independent body of WCK historical investigation, is run by the HFY crew (founder and curator of the VTM is Benny Meng, Gee’s #1 “disciple”). And the story they promulgate as “the treu history of WCK” is HFY’s origination myth. Imagine for a moment how they would feel if Hendrik’s #1 disciple was head of the VTM and going around saying “the truth” is that WCK comes from Ermei boxing and White Crane! Without, of course, any independent verifiable evidence. They would be outraged – and rightly so.
I get that a lot of this is backlash from the MKF book presenting a certain viewpoint on history and doing some contrasting to “Popular WC”. (Which by the way I read as contrasting more to the type of thing you’re referring to in the quote as opposed to bashing all non-HFY WCK lineages). However, I’ve heard VTM presentations on history a number of times, and I’ve never heard anything like presenting it like absolute fact - more like “this is what we think based upon research”. The research done if you look at it really isn’t a whole lot different from other types of lineage research (anthropology based). There are artifacts, hands-on exchanges to look for sets, training methods, concepts (terms), systems. And there’s some filling in of the gaps, just like you would read in any book that is about lineages or groups of people we don’t know a whole lot about (like the Native Americans of 1000-1400AD in North America).
How can you porve lineage – WCK transferred from person to person, without proving those persons existed, that they knew WCK, and that they taught so-and-so? “Research” isn’t conclusions – it is the hard data. Research that isn’t independently verifiable isn’t good research. How can the VTM say anything about where HFY comes from if they can’t prove that Garrett Gee learned WCK from Wang Ming? If they can’t prove one generation past Gee, how in the world can they say it goes back to Shaolin? All the “concept” stuff, etc. doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. It all just remains pure speculation. Certainly not “truth”.
In general, MKF is a more detailed thorough handling of WCK than I’ve seen out there published. Maybe there are more people out there doing research too - good, the more the better. The fewer the historians you have the less complete a picture you have.
I’m not quite sure of what you mean by “detailed handling of WCK”. If you mean from a technical standpoint, I would disagree entirely. From a historical POV, it is pure speculation woven to market HFY.
There seems to be a group outside of HFY that has run into a Hung Suen WCK group that was trained by GM Gee’s sihing in China or HK. Instead of anyone asking Firehawk where he heard about this, instantly we have demands for “provide the address of the school” or it’s not “independantly verifiable”. Sheesh - with all you mouth-breathers out there, if I did have “independantly verifiable evidence” type artifacts personally, I’d keep them away from you drooling on them for general principles. There are photos mentioned, and probably “indoor” artifacts that won’t be made public. I think MKF has phrases from a kuen kuit recorded in it that are unique. At this point, we don’t know much about the Hung Suen group at all.
You’ve hit the nail on the head – we don’t know much at all, especially about HFY’s history. And that’s because there has been no evidence presented. I don’t know about you, but I try to base my conclusions on evidence not idle speculation. Stories are fine but they are not evidence. Why call people names (“mouthbreathers”) because we want evidence that can be independently verified?
The evidence either exists or it doesn’t.
Terence
Hands and feet. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=t_niehoff;732675]
As far as I’m concerned, there is no double standard – the same standard of proof applies to all. I’ve made the same complaints about Hendrik’s “theory” (which he too calls “fact”) on Rene’s forum. We just have to accept that if things can’t be proved, then they remain unproven. And while you may not see much stuff about TWC now, years ago when the claims were being made, there was lots of “discussion”. Today, these things have pretty much been ironed out and even most of the die-hard TWC practitioners don’t swallow Cheung’s account.
One of the real problems is that the VTM, which promotes itself as this independent body of WCK historical investigation, is run by the HFY crew (founder and curator of the VTM is Benny Meng, Gee’s #1 “disciple”). And the story they promulgate as “the treu history of WCK” is HFY’s origination myth. Imagine for a moment how they would feel if Hendrik’s #1 disciple was head of the VTM and going around saying “the truth” is that WCK comes from Ermei boxing and White Crane! Without, of course, any independent verifiable evidence. They would be outraged – and rightly so.
[/QUOTE]
In the field of research, one needs to have the criterion and knowing the field. Instead of jumping into research without any background and resist to look at evidents.
The above arguement is great, however, for me, it is just using a nagation arguement to nagate out every possibility to shows one’s own unbiased. That, for me, is about to win arguement on the cost of nagate everything. it just show " I am right ".
Could we shift into the state of provide evidents, examine evidents, and see which is likely?
instead of everyone turn into expert to argue for sake of argue? and when one needs to win the arguement, one is willing to sacrify any facts just to win the arguement for oneself?
It is my suggestion to anyone including Terence, you want prove? ask Gene Ching’s help to set up a meeting between the GM PAng of White CRane from FUjian, GM Fu or Emei, there once for all, I present my case and evidents. Gene could put that in the cover of his magazine, everyone can Youtube. Let those real pro to make the decision on the matterial I show, be it Yes or No. I will accept the vedict.
I am willing to go that far instead of playing Pro without any true or only partial knowledge about CMA.
Make my day.
I think the VTM (or HFYWCK family) are hardly in a position to attack Hendrik’s lineage and theories. The standard of proof seems to be similar, i.e. both rely on oral tradition and written documentation passed down within the lineage. Both parties have done comparative studies of their WCK art with other arts and have come to different conclusions about their ultimate origins.
At the very least Hendrik can provide proof of his lineage back by at least 2-3 generations, even if you don’t accept a direct link back to Yik Kam. At present, because of the HFYWCK family’s unwillingness to disclose any more information (which is their perogative and our “duty” to question), we can only trace HFYWCK to one man: Garrett Gee sifu. Where have the other 3 sihing/dai gone?
Let’s give it a rest shall we? No one seems to agree what an acceptable standard of proof is. For me it would be documentation outside of one’s lineage, e.g. governmental records, oral tradition or documentation in other non-WCK families.