Hi Tom,
Good points. I dont think WC claims the pole from Jee Shim but more from Weng Chun 6.5. The Gee Shim part just fits in with the rest of legends/fables.
How similar is Hung Gar and Weng Chun was the perfect question!
Regards,
Hung Gar Photo attached!
Some people also learned more than one lineage, such as Yuen Kay-San under Fok & Fung. The Cho’s had their ancestral village boxing (some Choy Lai Fut, some White Crane). Some of the Weng Chun people had prior/latter experience in Hung, CLF, Wing Chun, etc.
What systems look like today are a product of generations of evolution (even unintentional, as humans are not replicative machines), and comparing what Hung Ga (post Wong Fei-Hong), Weng Chun (post Chu Chong-Man), etc. look like today may not have the same meaning as what they looked like in the mid 1800s.
Hung Gar photo attached.
Hendrik wrote:
If I think Sam Pai Fut i saw Andreas did is closer to the Shao Lin Long Fist. is that a sin?
At this moment, probably the strongest ideology in this forum is Hendriklism. This atmosphere is not favorable to bringing about the WCK world without Hendrik’s mumbo.
From Shaolin to Wong Wah-Bo WCK - SLT, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee.
From Emie to Yik Kam’s family art- 12 Zheung (a.k.a Hendrik’s SLT)
Is superior intellect a large development of the faculty of association by similarity?
Hm…
The difference between the real kung fu guy and the self-appointed kung fu expert is this:
the real kung fu guy --do kung fu.
the self-appointed kung-fu expert–talk kung-fu.
Hey Rene,
I agree and somewhat disagree a pinch. People are not carbon copies, and cannot exacatly duplicate anything, but if you look a most arts you can see how they still show the main similarities as they did many years ago unless someone meshed it with a lot of other stuff or changed it a lot.
YKS, Pin Sun, Cho etc. all seem to resemble WC as it was done for the past 100 + years or so and all three of these arts had other influence with Kung Fu. YKS has two. Some of the Fung’s had Fujian Kung Fu in the village before WC. The Cho’s had CLF etc.. Yet they still keep the core WC in tact some 100 + years later.
In the Mantis arts the main thing you see changed is the addition of more forms and a longer/bigger structure but looking back at the older you see smaller more compact stuff with less forms. Kind of like most arts now unfortunatley but the core characteristcs are still the same some 100 + years later.
Roger,
The difference between the real kung fu guy and the self-appointed kung fu expert is this:
the real kung fu guy --do kung fu.
the self-appointed kung-fu expert–talk kung-fu.
Unfortunately on a “discussion board” all we can do is talk.
Your answers are the sign of zero research/info.. You cut and paste some stuff and take it as gospel. When someone shows logical information as to how Jee Shim, Ng Mui etc. is just a fable you get huffy.
If you cant discuss WC in an adult way then please go into lurk mode so it doesnt waste others time.
Regards,
Hey Jim,
I think we actually agree completely. My point is that you need to do the work to discern what is more likely ancestral, and what is the result of different evolutions. For example, if some WCK in SEA learned Hung for 50 years, thenWCK, and his WCK looked 90% like Hung, is that a sign that WCK and Hung share common ancestry? Maybe, maybe not. You’d have to do the work, see Hung and WCK from different lineages, date their split, see what commonalities likely existed before it, etc…
Hiya Rene,
Ooops! Misunderstood your post amigo.
Totally agree with you.
Gotta run! Too much posting today!
Its effecting my work! Uggg!
See ya!
Rolling_Hand keeping center
[B]"From Shaolin to Wong Wah-Bo WCK - SLT, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee.
From Emie to Yik Kam’s family art- 12 Zheung (a.k.a Hendrik’s SLT)" - RH[/B]
This is the message Jim should have posted.
Found this bit while net surfing …
… Clergical branch, or Fo Jia Pai in Mandarin (Hood Kar Pai in Hokkien, a Chinese dialect from Fujian Province of China), was practised traditionally by Shao-Lin monks, whereas laic branch, or Su Jia Pai, was practised by laymen. Examples of the latter are Hong Jia Quan (Hong Gar Kuen in Cantonese) and Fu-Jian White Crane Style.
Hmmm …
Jim - Thanks for sharing so much on Southern Mantis. Looks like theres a lot to read.
-David
Hi All,
Thanks Jim, things just don’t add up when you really disect things. Now that I am doing Hung Gar, I just don’t get it. LOL. The stories say Leung Yee Tai learned the 6.5 pole from Gee Shim, atleast Yip Man’s lineage does. But Perhaps that was a partial meaning. Maybe he learned Gee Shim WENG CHUN and that is were the pole came from. It was assumed to be Gee Shim himself. Who knows. But good point likewise.
Rene, yes arts probably are not the same. We don’t know what was taught in the early 1800s. However, we can see differences between Yik Kam, Yuen Kay San, and Yip Man wing chun, but we also see a similar flavor. It is still very close. Yes hung gar too has been highly modified. However, we do have various villiage styles that exists outside of Wong Fei Hung. And they do seem to have the same flavor as Wong Fei Hung Hung Gar.
Tom
Hello Tom,
Logic shows how a lot of these old stories dont add up. Too much BS in Chinese common or commercial history. Especially the 5 fabled elders.
Gee Shim would have taught “Geung Gee Fook Fu Kuen, Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen and Tit Sein Kuen etc.” to Hung Hei Gwun and then taught “Weng Chun Kuen, Fa Kuen, Sam Bai Fut and Jong Kuen etc.” to Dai Fa Min Kam??? Plus! The datelines dont jive!
Please realize the stuff I write has nothing against any of the arts being discussed (Hung Gar, Weng Chun, HFY, etc. etc.). Its all about discussing the old legends/myths that surround arts and histories etc. . Remember! My own family promotes the Ng Mui, etc. etc. so its just my own thoughts and has nothing against anyone or any lineage.
IMO You just cant come up with something new even tho the old was around for so long and understood so well. The other problem is the old I am talking about was highly effective and simple to learn. The south arts were not arts that took 10-15 years to learn. Something has to come into the picture to develop a new mechanics and art outline. Thats why I feel Hendrik’s info. makes so much sense.
See ya,
David -
> "From Shaolin to Wong Wah-Bo WCK - SLT, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee.
> From Emie to Yik Kam’s family art- 12 Zheung (a.k.a Hendrik’s SLT)" - RH
> This is the message Jim should have posted.
Not sure if you meant to agree with the mistatement quoted, but to clarify, it should read : Emei 12 Zhuang + Fujian White Crane to Yik Kam’s Siu Lien Tao, which contains 4 sections, the middle two being analogus to Chum Kiu and Biu Jee in the Wong Wah-Bo lineage.
I think if we’re discussing this in good faith, we should make every effort to keep that faith, especially in respecting the views of others, and not mistating them (not directed at you, but at all of us).
Jim - I’m not sure Jee Shim would have taught either Tiet Sin Kuen or Fu Hok Seung Ying Kuen. Annecdotal accounts place both of those sets as being introduced after Hung Hey-Goon’s time. This is part of the point I was making about trying to judge ancestral arts based on modern practices.
You’re right about the info Hendrik is presenting (I wouldn’t call it “his” as he didn’t make it up but researched and presented it, and provided a means for others to independantly evaluate it). As you know, I didn’t agree with it at first (and still am not sure about parts) but what makes it different than most others is that it has substance beyond what he writes, and while we can’t say for sure, its far more difficult to disprove than most others.
Hey RR,
Good points.
I forgot that the Fu Hok set was a later development by one of the Hung masters. Never heard that about the Tit Sein but then I really dont know didly about Hung Gar.
Mckind (David),
I realized I didnt reply to your post. Sorry! Will try and hit it tomorrow!
See ya,
Hi Rene and Jim,
Yes those two forms in Hung Gar are much newer. The only form that is supposed to come from Gee Shim is Gung Gee, and that is said to have been retooled by Wong Fei Hung. However, there would be a certain flavor and a core set of techniques.
I am not sure what weapons come from Gee Shim, as most are borrowed at a latter date. People point to the butterfly knives in Hung Gar, but from my experience there are two distinct sets, and neither look like Wing Chuns.
Other people mistakly point to Fu Hok’s opening sequence as a connection to wing chun. They see wing chun moves and figure it is the same. The call Bueaty looks at mirror a tan sau for example. Bueaty looks at mirror is more of an outward block, totaly different usage. Some see YJKYM and say, " look, its wing chun". Though that stance is found in Iron Wire which is external to hung gar, and is common to white crane and other internal arts. People say there si a bong sau and pak sau. Well, those are common in many styles.
IF there is a connection between hung gar and wing chun, I would say that it is only visible in the bridging. There are some unique bridging concepts that seem similar, atleast more so than YJKYM and a couple opening sequences in Fu Hok. But I am a novice at both wing chun and hung gar so it is hard to say. But I do see something worth looking at.
As far as the legends, I think you got it right Jim, the elders would be too busy to create all those arts. LOL. I often point out the number of arts attributed to each. I beleive Gee Shim trained Hung Hei Goon and Luk Ah Choi for a while. There is some contradictions, but some say Hung Hei Goon escaped the destruction WITH Gee Shim. So at least he would be along with him durring the early years, which means he wouldn’t have been on the Red Boats at that period without Hung Hei Goon. Then Luk Ah Choi was said to either have trained with Hung Hei Goon, or in many cases, directly with Gee Shim after Hung Hei Goon, or instead of with Hung hei Goon. So he would be with Gee Shim a bit later. I am assuming that if he was the head monk, he would be older when the temple was burned down, and not have a lot of time to train several people and develop a new style. Hung Gar takes a little while to learn, so I would say that probably accounts for 5- 10 years after the destruction of the temple. I just wonder when and where he would have time for the red boats and such. And for those that think wing chun is a quik art, who reaches a high degree of skill in a short period? And besides, where would a vegetarian learn to cook meat?
By the way, I don’t take Hung Gar lineage too serious either. But if we are going to claim things as passed down, I think Hung Gar is as acurate as any other branch. Most branches did not document things well. Hung Gar had the fortune of Being taugh in the Wong Fei Hung Family for a couple generations and was recorded to a degree.
just some thoughts
Tom
Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
[B]
At this moment, probably the strongest ideology in this forum is Hendriklism. This atmosphere is not favorable to bringing about the WCK world without Hendrik’s mumbo.
From Shaolin to Wong Wah-Bo WCK - SLT, Chum Kiu, Biu Jee.
From Emie to Yik Kam’s family art- 12 Zheung (a.k.a Hendrik’s SLT)
[/B]
Rolling Hand,
From your posts which always targeting me,
Somehow you don’t like me and love to attack me. And that is fine.
However, There is no Hendriklism.
There is only FACTSlism.
As you like the Facts or not, that is your choice.
I just present and it is up to everyone’s decision. I don’t force people to belive. as i said, i am not perfect. Just willing to share what I found out.
On other hand,
If you love to continous your own stories in the legend / movie land that is also understandable.
I am also interested in your view in the movie land.
In that case, you needs to explain, how is ChiSim survive to Red Junk. While in the story and shaw brothers’ movies… Chisim was killed by Bak Mei in the ambus of Shao Lin. obviously, Chisim’s Kung fu is not as good as Bak Mei…
And Later Hung Wen-Ting or the son of Hung Hei-Kun has to revenge for his father and Chisim… to look for BAk Mei for revenge…
Now, there is no Wing Chun Kun or Siu Lien Tau? How will you fit them in? What is your interesting plot?
HONESTLY, I DON’T EVEN CARE IF SLT IS FROM EMEI OR SHAO LIN OR WUDANG OR FIJI OR MARS OR SATURN OR MOON OR YWC IS ET OR TAN SAU NG IS THE …
WHAT I CARE IS WHAT GOOD IS ALL THE HIS-STORY (INCLUDED MY OWN) PRESENTED DOING FOR EVERY ONE’S SLT TRAINING.
ONE CANNOT CONTIOUS DOING SLT AND EXPECT SOMEDAY’S NG MUI OR WHOEVER POPS UP AND MIRRACLE HAPPEN.---- ’ POOF’ ATTAIN THE ULTIMATE POWER. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
STORIES WITHOUT EVIDENTS AND SPECULATION OF ORIGINAL WITHOUT FACTS ARE JUST OPIUM OF MIND. SELLING EMPTY HOPE.
WHILE IN THE SAMETIME, IMPORTING OTHER ART SUCH AS TAIJI, BJJ, GRAPPING, GROUND FIGTHING… BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOWS IT DOENS’T WORK.
IS THAT WCK? DOES WCK REALLY WORK?
IMHO, MARTIAL ART OR RELIGION WHICH IS NOT SERVING HUMAN BEINGS BUT DRAIN HUMAN BEING’S ENERGY IS NOT WORTH PROTECTING.
CAN WE ALL FACE OURSELF AND HONESTLY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS?
HERE , I AM NOT AGAINST ANY ONE, OR LINEAGE, OR STYLE. IMHO, it is just my own thought. hope that in this land of freedom of speech. An honest communication can be made. Again, I can be wrong.
One can keep beliving the black vynal (spelling?) record is going to be around forever but wake out somedays to find out CD has replace all the black vynal record. And the record industry collapse over night. WHAT is the FAITH of future WCK?
That is the question I am asking.
Originally posted by tparkerkfo
[B]And besides, where would a vegetarian learn to cook meat?
Tom [/B]
Tom,
the teaching of Buddha is to sacrifice himself to feed the hungry eagle or tiger.
I think the only meat the Buddha will cook is his own.
Hendrik-
some comments and a question-
-
I have learned a lot from your comments on Chan, Emei and your lineage-
-
You have raised some interesting questions on wc history.
3, we are still a ways off from havinga definitive history of wung chun.
-
People can disagree with you and of course we have our resident anonymous troll..
-
I understand Sakyamuni’s reverence and compassion for living things and the avoidance of killing. But at the same time- the middle way avoids dogmatic ascetism specially in certain circumstances. Being non discrminatory on class and caste he had
accepted food from a low catse person… unfortunately the story is that it was spoiled sausage which contributed to his last illness.
Also the Dalai Lama from his Tibetan perspective points out that even though he tried to avoid it he had to settle for meat given the geography of the high plateaux of Tibet. There is an existential dimension to this and doing the best one can.Any comment? -
In the website of the the other Cho sifu that someone (Dezhen?) posted- his stancing appeared to be closer to a bow than to
a derivative of ygkym. Is that because of mixes of other things
besides wc in what he does? Swallow and spit occurs in many nam kuen-but his leaning back seems to be a different swallowing from atleast what I know and use. Comments?
joy
Savi sez:And just one note… it seems apparent that we are all agreeing WC came from Shaolin, whether it be from Crane, Mantis, Dragon, or whatever. These arts (aside from Hakka, which I don’t know about) we are referencing comes from a Shaolin heritage. (as far as I know…)
Hung Fa Yi and Jee Sim are claiming to be flowers of the Shaolin Temple Arts as a whole, and not just from another singular martial art. It sounds like we are beginning to sing from the same page then.
((An overgeneralization about Shaolin IMO and the supposed agreement. Shaolin is one very big umbrella which covers many claims))
((Jim- southern mantis IMO is also very aware of the center line principle and the protection of the center with the elbows.))
(( Also- IMO FWIW contributing to the development fo the center line theory surely the Buddhist conception of body structure the dan tiens and related spinal alignments and their physiological impkications surely playeda role. The awareness of the martial implications and possibilities of this fundanebral idea- took time in evolving. This is part of the reason why I think that wc is a very advanced art because in its evolution it synthesized so many good things in TCMA)
Another interesting topic,
Gee Shim is noted for his Tiger skills. This formed the foundation of the Hung Gar system and is his legacy. People who think wing chun and hung gar are connected, often point the Crane elements. However, it is known in Hung Gar that the crane was added much later from an external source.
So, How would Jee Shim teach the “crane” system to wing chun and the tiger system hung gar. Even if he did, the crane could not be the same as Hung Gar since it comes from a different source. Yet another connection between wing chun, hung gar is in contradiciton if we look at the legends. It makes no sense.
I think it is good to look at other arts like Gee Shim weng chun to help answer our questions. But we should look at everything. Hung Gar is the one art that has always had a close tie to Gee Shim. So if we are to beleive Gee Shim Weng Chun’s oral traditions, then we should atleast look at Hung Gar’s as well and see how they overlap and contradict each other.
Just voicing my confusion in the hung Gar/wing chun, Gee Shim, and shaolin connection
Tom
Originally posted by yuanfen
[B]Hendrik-
some comments and a question-
- People can disagree with you and of course we have our resident anonymous troll..
[/B]
Joy,
Understood. Just hope that the troll wake up before they slam into wall.. sad for them for the future.
[B]
- I understand Sakyamuni’s reverence and compassion for living things and the avoidance of killing. But at the same time- the middle way avoids dogmatic ascetism specially in certain circumstances. Being non discrminatory on class and caste he had
accepted food from a low catse person… unfortunately the story is that it was spoiled sausage which contributed to his last illness.
Also the Dalai Lama from his Tibetan perspective points out that even though he tried to avoid it he had to settle for meat given the geography of the high plateaux of Tibet. There is an existential dimension to this and doing the best one can.Any comment?
[/B]
IMHO,
This is not an easy one.
middle way is great but we have to deal with “body chemistry” and emotional effect to the body/mind/spirit----- energy.
But, after fortunate enough to have meet with different monks and rinpoche, Cleansing, strict vegitarian… that is the Surangama’s rules which are required for buddhist cultivators.
as I have learn specially for those wants to cultivate Samadhi… to avoid mind/body problems…energy handling problem.
It is true that Buddha had said, if there is really really poor living condition area. one can eat the cropse of nature die animal. But not the one we kill. but in surangama sutra, the buddha said No to serious cultivator.
As for Dai Lai Lama, well when he went to Taiwan, he order lots of gourme Meat foods… the Taiwan Buddhists protest… no comment.
but Taiwan fill with good food and vegi. Only Dai Lai himself know. if what he did is appropriate or in the name of Middle way to fulfill his own desire.
[B]
- In the website of the the other Cho sifu that someone (Dezhen?) posted- his stancing appeared to be closer to a bow than to
a derivative of ygkym. Is that because of mixes of other things
besides wc in what he does? Swallow and spit occurs in many nam kuen-but his leaning back seems to be a different swallowing from atleast what I know and use. Comments?
joy [/B]
IMHO, I see his “interpretation” of WCK. closer to Hung Gar mix taiji then WCK.
1, I think using the "cover " for the Horn attack is not taking the advantage of the horn is an outer circle attact. well, for me, i will take advantage of it go piecing throught to
the center line. instead of going out even further outside the outside circle to do the defence… that is no longer swallow… but can be losing potential and timing…
2, I think his side body angle attact on the picture after the cover… is too far from the oponent. that left the opponent to change. I myself prefer to stick in and leave no room to the opponent who did the horn punch.
My sifu uses the type of stance in the salutation as in the following article if you want to have a feel of how in general my sifu did it in fighting…
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/readings/historical/cho_santo01.html
But then, may be different people remember it differently.