Reply to hfy Meng from Chu Sifu

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
101

Savi wrote:

Terence, if evidence is what you GENUINELY want on the legitimacy of HFY as a system - the best way is to study and learn it. If you GENUINELY want independently verifiable evidence as to HFY’s lineage, learn from Liddel’s comment above.

I am not talking about the legitimacy of HFY as a martial art, but whether there is any independently verifiable evidence to support the claim (made by HFY/VTM) that its “history” is true and factual (“the true history of WCK”). No one should need to study HFY to learn that or not.

In addition to verifying evidence, what credentials do you have to show that you are qualified to verify anything the HFY puts forth? The HFY has put forth a great deal of information in the past several years, yet how much of it have you independently verified? When it comes down to it in the big picture HFY’s history is no different from any others. History is for historians/researchers and for those who are interested in it; you are neither and have stated as such. The fact is, you are not genuine which destroys any sense for integrity in your questioning.

What “quaifications” does anyone need to determine lineage? None. If the evidence exists, then anyone can see it. Who doubts that Bruce Lee learned WCK from Yip Man? Anyone can prove both men existed, both knew WCK, that one learned from the other. Lots of evidence.

The difference between HFY and “others” are numerous. For example, HFY promotes its oral myths as “the truth” or “the real history of WCK”, through the clever use of another organization with an “official” and nuetral-sounding name, the Ving Tsun Museum. Or, that the #1 disciple of Gee goes around the world, spreading “the truth” and “the research” of the VTM (the HFY propaganda) without presenting any independently verifiable evidence of any of those claims.

Yet, none of those things matter, now does it Terence?

Apparently it matters to you, or you wouldn’t be here. :wink:

So long as it works, right? You’ve professed to being all about “application being your sifu”. You should stick to that method, as you’ve got a long hard road ahead of you and these discussions will side track your trial and error progress. When it comes down to what matters as martial artists, it is all about our individual progress and skills in application.

Again, you are confusing the fighting method itself with the lineage (historical) claims. They are two different things.

BTW, “letting application by your sifu” is what all fighters do – regardless of style, lineage, etc.

After reading this thread, the one obvious thing is that there are several people who are here not to hold a productive dialog on any level, but to express themselves for the sake of expression. Like my Sibaak Chango said, they’ve already decided in their minds about “what is and what is not” so this discussion is pointless with those people. I am reminded of the time that Robert Chu told GM Gee “That’s not Tan Sau, this is Tan Sau!!!” There is simply no room for open discussion with those guys; no sense for consideration of others’ viewpoints and until the air is less polluted here we’re all going to go round in circles.

We’re going to keep “going round in circles” until the VTM/HFY provides independently verifiable evidence of its claims. Until that is done, they will keep making the claims, people will keep demanding proof of those claims, and you guys will keep coming forward with the same old attempts to misdirect people.

Terence

102

“This is very silly O.K. what independent evidence do you have that your Sifu finished the system under anyone? this brings up even more questions. 1. was he recognized by any credible Sifu to be qualified to teach? 2. why doesn’t he have anything good to say about other Wing Chun Sifus? etc… LOL!” (Chango)

…

"The shift the burden dodge. The question is about the HFY/VTM’s claims.

But since you bring it up, the only way to know if anyone is qualified to teach is by the performance of their students. Why does Robert criticize so many in WCK? Simple, because there is so much to criticize. :slight_smile: " (Terence)

…

***ALAS…and here we have the ridiculousness of this thread - and of the hijacking of the Understanding TWC REVISITED thread.

BOTH SIDES…are full of 5HIT !!! :rolleyes:

Yes…Chango is dodging the issues (what else is new about the HFY folks?)…and yes, Robert Chu has NO BUSINESS talking so much trash about other people in wing chun. (Very mean-spirited and betrays a lack of his own self esteem).

Enought of this crap!

IT’S ABOUT HANDS, FEET, ELBOWS, AND KNEES…

Let’s have someone step up to the plate and organize an all-Wing Chun SPARRING tournament.

And soon!

Then the pretenders will be exposed - and those with real talent will be recognized.

103

Victor,

As I see it, there are two issues: the skill issue and the true history of WCK/lineage issue. They are not related, although some try to sell the notion that skill is related to lineage/history (we have the true WCK, you can only get it from us).

The “hands/feet” pertain to the issue of skill, not to the issue of historical claims. I agree with you: a person can prove skill only via performance (fighting). In fact, skill only comes from performance. So if people want to discuss matters of skill (technique, tactics, etc.), these things can only be determined by performance (letting application be our sifu).

Whether or not someone has skill, however, is not pertinent to claims regarding WCK’s “true” history. Historical claims are proved differentl: by independently verifiable evidence.

Many people do not like Robert’s criticisms. Personally, I don’t think there is nearly enough criticism in WCK, especially considering how much BS, fluff, nonsense, etc. is present in our art. The good news is that IMO this stuff is beginning to be and will eventually be snuffed out – due to the NHB/MMA revolution. People will have to put up or shut up, and teachers of fighitng methods will be expected to actually have some fighting skills.

Terence

104

And as I see it, Terence…

you’re just as guilty as the other side in drawing attention AWAY FROM the only thing could ever seriously change the sorry state-of-affairs that exists within the wing chun world today:

ORGANIZED SPARRING TOURNAMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

All the debates/arguments about lineage, history, personal rancor, and “rankings” take away valuable time and energy from the productive endeavor I’ve been suggesting.

Even with all your “talk” about sparring, sparring, sparring…:rolleyes:

I’m still amazed that you didn’t show up in Cleveland, Ohio in May, 2005…btw.

Man…you were really talking up a storm in the months leading up to that !

And Benny Meng wanted to STACK THE DECK in his favor by trying to come with 12-15 people…which Carl Dechiara wisely did not let happen - since it would have given one particular lineage a distinct numerical advantage.

(And so Benny didn’t show at all).

Like I said…both sides are full of 5HIT.

105

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;733470]And as I see it, Terence…

you’re just as guilty as the other side in drawing attention AWAY FROM the only thing could ever seriously change the sorry state-of-affairs that exists within the wing chun world today:

ORGANIZED SPARRING TOURNAMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

All the debates/arguments about lineage, history, personal rancor, and “rankings” take away valuable time and energy from the productive endeavor I’ve been suggesting.

Even with all your “talk” about sparring, sparring, sparring…:rolleyes:

I’m still amazed that you didn’t show up in Cleveland, Ohio in May, 2005…btw.

Man…you were really talking up a storm in the months leading up to that !

And Benny Meng wanted to STACK THE DECK in his favor by trying to come with 12-15 people…which Carl Dechiara wisely did not let happen - since it would have given one particular lineage a distinct numerical advantage.

(And so Benny didn’t show at all).

Like I said…both sides are full of 5HIT.[/QUOTE]

Let me get this straight. The only organized sparring-related get-together put out by all the smack-talkers on this forum had 12-15 registrations from HFY members. AND THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE???

AND YOU THINK SOMEHOW THIS IS WISE?

Somehow the grappling community doesn’t think like that (NAGA, GC, Mundials, etc.) “Dear Mr. Machado, we regret to inform you that your academy HAD TOO MANY REGISTRANTS for the Mundials this year, and this would put your academy at an unfair advantage, so we’re going to have to deny them.”

Now I’ve heard it all.

106

Master Meng is not the inheritor of the HFY system, so his position on the matter is separate from GM Gee. Just because he is a disciple of HFY does not mean what he says or believes supersedes his Sifu.

This is more hairsplitting political crap. By that logic, you, Chango, Wayfaring, passing_through, and CangLong have nothing of value to say about HFY and your opinions should be ignored.

My concerns with Benny are the unsubstantiated malevolent piffle he’s stated on HFY108 and elsewhere about people like Rene Ritchie, Robert Chu and others. Yes, Robert’s no saint either. Nor is William Cheung. Benny’s made those statements. They speak about his personal character, whether he is or is not an authorised mouth boxer for HFY, the VTM, the Promise Keepers, the Communist Party or the Church of the SubGenius (though he’d need a sense of homur implanted for the last).

I have no problem with HFY or the VTM as orgs. good luck to them. Some of their officers I have cause to wonder about.

You stated: “The issue is statements made by two individuals, and what that says about them. As individuals.” What two individuals are you referring to?

Obviously, Benny Meng and Robert Chu, the subjects of the thread. Though I wouldn’t like to guess which hat, VTM, HFY, or otherwise you or Benny would prefer he was or was not wearing at the time he spewed his guts.

BOTH SIDES…are full of 5HIT !!!

Hard to argue with that.

107

No. (And you’re being an a55hole to the gracious organisers who have nothing to do with this.)

The numbers were limited so rather than have 15 guys from one lineage taking up half the spots, it was done via lottery. Fair enough?

[QUOTE=Wayfaring;733487]Let me get this straight. The only organized sparring-related get-together put out by all the smack-talkers on this forum had 12-15 registrations from HFY members. AND THEY WEREN’T ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE???

AND YOU THINK SOMEHOW THIS IS WISE?

Somehow the grappling community doesn’t think like that (NAGA, GC, Mundials, etc.) “Dear Mr. Machado, we regret to inform you that your academy HAD TOO MANY REGISTRANTS for the Mundials this year, and this would put your academy at an unfair advantage, so we’re going to have to deny them.”

Now I’ve heard it all.[/QUOTE]

108

[QUOTE=Edmund;733536]No. (And you’re being an a55hole to the gracious organisers who have nothing to do with this.)

The numbers were limited so rather than have 15 guys from one lineage taking up half the spots, it was done via lottery. Fair enough?[/QUOTE]

OK - capacity problem. Understood. But don’t misread my post as anything to do with the gracious hosts.

109

[QUOTE=t_niehoff;733373]But since you bring it up, the only way to know if anyone is qualified to teach is by the performance of their students. Why does Robert criticize so many in WCK? Simple, because there is so much to criticize. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

By direct contrast, people like Pat Militech (who you brought up), Randy Couture, and many other top name teachers and MMA school leaders don’t really do a lot of Internet criticism of other schools, MMA or TMA.

110

What a load of crap, Wayfaring…!!!:eek:

Benny was told he could bring 6-7 guys (which was the cap set in advance for ANY lineage to bring)…but no…Benny wanted to either bring double that amount or not come at all !

So HE CHOSE not to come.

Gee…I wonder why? :cool:

111

Somehow the grappling community doesn’t think like that (NAGA, GC, Mundials, etc.) “Dear Mr. Machado, we regret to inform you that your academy HAD TOO MANY REGISTRANTS for the Mundials this year, and this would put your academy at an unfair advantage, so we’re going to have to deny them.”

This happened a lot with the early UFC’s. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were “unknowns”, apparently.

112

[QUOTE=anerlich;733564]This happened a lot with the early UFC’s. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were “unknowns”, apparently.[/QUOTE]

Wow! Really? Now that’s political BS!

Best,
Kenton Sefcik

113

[QUOTE=anerlich;733564]This happened a lot with the early UFC’s. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were “unknowns”, apparently.[/QUOTE]

So apparantly we’ll never know if Rick Spain could have taken Tank Abbott when he was in fighting shape. Oh, wait, Tank never WAS in fighting shape. :rolleyes:
He could just bench 600. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:David_Abbott_benchpress_600lb.jpg

114

So apparantly we’ll never know if Rick Spain could have taken Tank Abbott when he was in fighting shape. Oh, wait, Tank never WAS in fighting shape.
He could just bench 600. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:D...ress_600lb.jpg

And your point is … ?

Rick had 37 successful pro kickboxing matches, over 100 amateur.

He had street encounters in numbers rivalling those others in the WC world who stake their reputations on such things.

He’s done what many of you guys and your Sifus claim to be able to do but never have.

In those times, I’m not sure he would have done that well against the grapplers … and apparently neither did he, as he did start training BJJ in earnest, and now holds the rank of purple belt. He’s about 48 now, past peak fighting age, so I guess we will never know for sure. But he has little to prove.

You’d do better to use him as an advertisement for the efficacy of what you do, rather than give in to your apparent need to drag him and others down to your level so you don’t feel inadequate.

Marty Goldberg knows more about this specific event than I.

115

[QUOTE=anerlich;733788]And your point is … ?

Rick had 37 successful pro kickboxing matches, over 100 amateur.

He had street encounters in numbers rivalling those others in the WC world who stake their reputations on such things.

He’s done what many of you guys and your Sifus claim to be able to do but never have.

In those times, I’m not sure he would have done that well against the grapplers … and apparently neither did he, as he did start training BJJ in earnest, and now holds the rank of purple belt. He’s about 48 now, past peak fighting age, so I guess we will never know for sure. But he has little to prove.

You’d do better to use him as an advertisement for the efficacy of what you do, rather than give in to your apparent need to drag him and others down to your level so you don’t feel inadequate.

Marty Goldberg knows more about this specific event than I.[/QUOTE]

I don’t really have a point related to Rick Spain as I don’t know him. Anyone with a pro kickboxing career has my kudos as a fighter - I’ve trained with one. I’m sure he’s probably a person with a WCK background who genuinely can fight.

You’re starting to get wound up a little too tight. I didn’t ask you what your point was with the little UFC history trivia divergence.

116

[QUOTE=Ultimatewingchun;733470]And as I see it, Terence…

you’re just as guilty as the other side in drawing attention AWAY FROM the only thing could ever seriously change the sorry state-of-affairs that exists within the wing chun world today:

ORGANIZED SPARRING TOURNAMENTS ON A REGULAR BASIS.

All the debates/arguments about lineage, history, personal rancor, and “rankings” take away valuable time and energy from the productive endeavor I’ve been suggesting.

Even with all your “talk” about sparring, sparring, sparring…:rolleyes:

I’m still amazed that you didn’t show up in Cleveland, Ohio in May, 2005…btw.

Man…you were really talking up a storm in the months leading up to that !

And Benny Meng wanted to STACK THE DECK in his favor by trying to come with 12-15 people…which Carl Dechiara wisely did not let happen - since it would have given one particular lineage a distinct numerical advantage.

(And so Benny didn’t show at all).

Like I said…both sides are full of 5HIT.[/QUOTE]

Victor,

The question has been (or at least was) about HFY/VTM’s historical/lienage claims – at least this is what Alan asked about, and what we’ve ben discussing on your hijacked thread. :slight_smile:

The question of history/lineage isn’t going to be settled by a WCK sparring tournament.

Nevertheless, this notion of your’s about a WCK “tournament” seems to be an itch you can’t scratch. If you recall, I told you when you first proposed this idea that I had the same one years before you (ask your buddy Phil - we talked about it on the old WCML). I dropped it for several reasons, mainly because once I began sparring with some really good folks I realized such an event (restricted to WCK people only) was pointless. As I told you then, in my view the idea of a WCK-only “tournament” is a waste of time (at least of my time). It’s not just the sparring that matters, it is the quality of the sparring that matters. I told you during our discussions that for any such event to be useful it should just be MMA/NHB open event and that these can be found all over the place. We discussed this at length. You went ahead with your “WCK tournament”, outlining your WCK rules, etc.

While you guys were having your event, I went to a different event that I felt was more productive toward my goals. To each his own.

Of course, you don’t agree with me about these “tournaments”. I understand that. Even so, I don’t feel the need to personally attack you because you disagree with me.

If you or anyone want to visit us here, you’re always welcome. But quite frankly, I am only interested in my growth in skill and my enjoyment – your “tournaments” don’t offer me anything.

Terence

117

I didn’t ask you what your point was with the little UFC history trivia divergence.

No you didn’t ask, but it was in response to a post you made about the lack of bias of grappling organisations to various gyms or organisations. The UFC ain’t strictly a grappling organisation, I suppose.

But then if your posts don’t need a point, why do mine?

You’re starting to get wound up a little too tight.

LOL, if I’m wound up too tight, other people on the thread must look like twisted up wrung out dishrags.

118

[QUOTE=anerlich;733564]This happened a lot with the early UFC’s. Entries for Joe Sayah and Rick Spain (TWC) were refused. They were “unknowns”, apparently.[/QUOTE]
Anerlich-
I trained at the Gracie academy for many years. Back in the original days, they actually had to go searching for competent contestants. They even put adds in martial arts publications to get fighters interested in competing. No one with documented fighting experience was turned down.

119

Enough fighting all families are entitled to their myths HFY can have their myths as well the problem is with the VTM saying a myth is truth.

In 1981 the book Martial Arts of southern China was published in China. This was the work of over 100 PHds etc True scholars and historians. It was about all the arts from the south. Just 1 chapter on wing chun. The purpose of the book was to separate fact from creation myth. Fact everything the VTM says about HFY and its relation to other Wing Chun families is 100 opposed by the facts in the book. Fact VTM says they are researchers and are honest why then have they never quoted the only work by scholars done on the subject of creation myths vs creation facts of southern martial arts? Fact you would fail every basic college history class anywhere if you wrote a paper and did not refer to the only work done by scholars on the subject of your paper. Fact the VTM has never used the book, referenced the book or ever produced any work published by independent scholars to refute the book. Until this is done all work done by the VTM is suspect to say the least. I do not ever expect this to be done since all factual information disagrees with the VTM-HFY myths.

Fact all histories of the red boat operas agree that Lee Man was the head and that those who wore the Red Bandanas were outsiders,local thugs etc that joined the rebellion. In no way was anyone wearing a red bandana a leader or an insider. If the VTM says this is wrong than please reference any published history and show us that you have any scholarly support otherwise it is just a myth nothing more.

120

[QUOTE=horserider;733888]Fact everything the VTM says about HFY and its relation to other Wing Chun families is 100 opposed by the facts in the book.
…
Fact all histories of the red boat operas agree that Lee Man was the head and that those who wore the Red Bandanas were outsiders,local thugs etc that joined the rebellion. In no way was anyone wearing a red bandana a leader or an insider. [/QUOTE]

What specific references in this book are you referring to? Can you quote a section? What specifically are you talking about w/r to HFY and relation to other WC families? Descendants below Tan-Sau Ng?

Lee Man was the head of what specifically?