We are drifting as we often do from the topic of the thread- in this case theories of the origin of wc. We keep coming back to
visiting a kwoon or buying a book. The original topic of the thread has pretty well played out it seems to me.
Re: my take
Hi Tony!
Let’s see if we can stear this thread back to some productive discussion. 
Originally posted by canglong
Hung Fa Yi distinguishes itself from art and self expression by incorporating a science and the wing chun formula which make it complete in that if you adhere to the formula there is nothing to add and nothing to subract from the system. Hung Fa Yi is not subjective to others interpretation as are other martial “arts” which clearly by their own definition make them incomplete and as such each practitioner is free to add or subtract from the art in pursuit of “evolving” the art to its next phase. This is not a positive or negative view of comparing hung fa yi science with other martial arts it is just an accurate way of comparing hfy science with other martial arts.
—I assume “other martial arts” includes “popular WCK”? This is something I don’t understand, so maybe you can help to clear it up. Prior to reading the new book I had heard many from the HFY family talk about its “HFY formula” and how this set it apart from other versions of WCK and made it so scientific. So this was one of the main portions of the new book that I was interested in reading. I was a bit surprised by what I found. Lets take a brief look at the “HFY forumula.” It is organzed by the following numbers: 1.2.3.5.6.5…
1 = The centerline concept. Explained the same way I learned it in “popular WCK.” Found in every version of WCK that I have come across.
2 = The two-line defense, referring to range and depth. This refers to defending the zone from the lead elbow forward with the “man sau hand” or lead hand while defending the zone from the lead elbow back with the “wu sau hand” or with the rear hand. It also incorporates the idea of simultaneous attack and defense. I learned all this in “popular WCK” and again, it has been part of every WCK version that I have seen.
3 = The three refence points. These are the high point (between the nose and top lip), the middle point (at the solar plexus), and the low point (at the tan tien). While I did not learn these as a specific entity with their chinese names, all three were utilized in the “popular WCK” that I learned. HFY has simply put a name to something most everyone else has already been doing.
5 = The five-line concept. This consists of the centerline, the two shoulder lines, and two “nipple lines”. We all use the centerline. I learned the two shoulder lines as the outer boundaries and how they become attack and defense lines depending upon orientation to the opponent. The “nipple lines” are described by the book only as the line on which the elbows are positioned. While I never learned about a “nipple line”, the elbow positioning is the same. It seems that HFY has just given a name to something that other WCK players were doing as well.
6 = The six gates. Inside and outside, upper, middle and lower. Again, this was part of the “popular WCK” that I learned, and seems to be a part of every WCK version that I have seen.
final 5 = “Five Elemental Arrays for Facing and Pursuit.” This is the only portion of the formula that does not appear to be a part of every other WCK version I have been exposed to. But it sure seems like a reworking of the “Traditional WCK” teachings about the 5 phases of combat. So this wouldn’t be unique to HFY either.
So please help me out here Tony. Please help me understand how this “HFY Formula” makes HFY so different and so much more “scientific” than “popular WCK.” I don’t see anything here as explained in the new book that is different that what I have learned in the past. HFY has certainly repackaged a lot of the concepts in new “gee wiz” scientific-sounding terminology. But once you get through the complicated language, the concepts seem to be pretty standard WCK.
Keith
IMO the words “science” and “complete” do not sit well together.
Scientific understanding changes over time almost by definition.
Only pseudo-sciences like astrology and creation science claim to be complete and never require changing over time as more data comes in or (deep echo on) “paradigms shift” (echo off).
This is OF COURSE not to place any emotional connotations on HFY or any other MA :eek: but …
Following the reasoning expressed above, I’m glad I do not practise a “complete” martial art.
If you truly are interested in having an adult conversation without the hecklers and backseat drivers
I think the hecklers and backseat drivers help deflate zealotry, insularity, pomposity and grandioseness, so I’ll stay here thanks all the same.
BTW, for any people outside US ordering the book, my delivery date has now been set back by Amazon until mid or late December. Don’t hold your breath, in other words, and I wouldn’t consider it as a Christmas gift if you want it there on the day.
tony ,
thank’s for the answer but to be honest with , since i could care less about history ‘’ i’m into modern attribute training ‘’ and since when i hear the word complete i have to ask myself ‘’ complete in respect to what ?
i have been in enough fights and trained with enough top notch fighters from all walks of life to now there is no way on earth you can quantiy a street fight , the only certianty is uncertaintiy
many people no matter what style try and crystalize a fight and create a ‘’ formula’’ to solve this problem .
but the problem lies in being human , and the human condition can not be fit into a neat little box of x and y = victory
but it makes people feel better when they have something solid to hold onto call it a security blanket of sorts ,
me i enjoy the chaos , the more time i spend in it the more relaxed and adaptable i become .
so my path is better suited for attribute development and adaptability,by way of experience and srtress overload emotional and physical.
this way i can make the human condition work in a natural progression not force it into a mathimatical one .
you know force circle into the square
but i do wish you guys the best and if we ever run into each other we can play and see how effective things are , that’s always the best way to judge seminars arn’t my style i get bored by lectures
thanks again for your responce
“I think the hecklers and backseat drivers help deflate zealotry, insularity, pomposity and grandioseness, so I’ll stay here thanks all the same.”
Anerlich…
"By staying here’ are you refering to the combatcentres in your link under your signature? Have you read there version of WC origins? Do you know by chance where they got there info??? Come on mate!! Tell us!
From my experience hecklers are just idiots, who only gained their confidence to speak up because of the fact that they can hide in a crowd.
Backseat drivers are nothing more than an annoying nuisance that sometimes cause accidents. This is due to the fact that they pay too much time focusing their attention on the reality of other’s rather than being aware of their own.
Re: Re: my take
Keith,
I don’t really care what WC anyone prefers… honestly. To each his own, but I can safely say that if this is all you absorbed from reading the section on the WC formula then you might want to return the MKF book.
When trying to understand life outside you actually have to step outside of your house . There’s much more to life than just what you can see through an open door.
You have taken the shared common WC terms we employ in the WC formula and supplied your own definitions and understanding. Kind of like an alien would think that a burrito, a egg roll, and a fallafel wrap were all the same thing. Just because they are all food wraped in some starch/carb device.
((1 = The centerline concept. Explained the same way I learned it in “popular WCK.” Found in every version of WCK that I have come across.))
True, except we believe in a 50/50 stance. Also every time we shifted from side to side our center of gravity stays exactly in the same spot. The YMWC I did used a 70/30 stance and everytime we shifted, our center of gravity went to the opposite side.
((2 = The two-line defense, referring to range and depth. This refers to defending the zone from the lead elbow forward with the “man sau hand” or lead hand while defending the zone from the lead elbow back with the “wu sau hand” or with the rear hand. It also incorporates the idea of simultaneous attack and defense. I learned all this in “popular WCK” and again, it has been part of every WCK version that I have seen.))
Yes… We all have two hands! But as the concept of two-line defense is simple to understand. The actual science behind where our hands reside, our elbow positioning, and in what manner our hands switch roles is much different.
((3 = The three refence points. These are the high point (between the nose and top lip), the middle point (at the solar plexus), and the low point (at the tan tien). While I did not learn these as a specific entity with their chinese names, all three were utilized in the “popular WCK” that I learned. HFY has simply put a name to something most everyone else has already been doing.))
Three reference points… Tin Yan Dei Saam Mo Kiu. The fundemental concept to our whole system. Trust me on this one… You haven’t the slightest idea of what you are talking about. This links our system directly to CHi Sim Weng Chun and the Southern Saolin Wing Chun Tong. Just ask yourselve where does your tan sau reside. Then ask one of your school-mates.
((5 = The five-line concept. This consists of the centerline, the two shoulder lines, and two “nipple lines”. We all use the centerline. I learned the two shoulder lines as the outer boundaries and how they become attack and defense lines depending upon orientation to the opponent. The “nipple lines” are described by the book only as the line on which the elbows are positioned. While I never learned about a “nipple line”, the elbow positioning is the same. It seems that HFY has just given a name to something that other WCK players were doing as well.))
The five-line concept is the horizontal map that outlines our physical structural positioning. If you think you have this, but just don’t have a name for it, your kidding yourself. Either way you should thank us for clearing the fog form your glasses.
((6 = The six gates. Inside and outside, upper, middle and lower. Again, this was part of the “popular WCK” that I learned, and seems to be a part of every WCK version that I have seen.))
Are you telling me that while in a 70/30 stance with your toes pointed in that you have the same footwork and lower-gate defence theory???
Keith..
All fruit’s not the same. There are apples, peaches, nectarines, and etc… There’s also unripe fruit, over-ripe fruit, and rotten fruit. There is also seasons for when to pick the fruit. You have missed the entire point of the WC formula. These are reference points that we never leave. They are consistently expressed in everything we do… be it SNT,CK, or BG. OR our SLT drill, wooden Dummy, and weapons.
Tin Yan Dei Saam Mo Kiu
Thirdparty,
your analogy did not mention that the second shooter’s weapon shoots further and that he was shouting out of range of the first shooter before the second shot the first, in other words I disagree with your analogy and let my statement stand you are more than welcome to agree or disagree but your argument was not persausive enough for me to change or restate my original point.
originally posted by kpm
—I assume “other martial arts” includes “popular WCK”? This is something I don’t understand, so maybe you can help to clear it up. Prior to reading the new book I had heard many from the HFY family talk about its “HFY formula” and how this set it apart from other versions of WCK and made it so scientific.
Keith, often times what we don’t say is just as significant as what we do say. I noticed when describing the characteristics of the formula you may or may not have noticed this but it is refered to as the wing chun formula not hung fa yi formula HFY is not trying to distance itself from other forms of wing chun that is the work of others. Secondly you neglected to mention saam dim yat sin dihng yuhn sahn or ngh douh lunk muhn fa kihn kwan concepts. Since these concepts were actually mentioned as the first points in chapter 5 titled wing chun formula I think they are worth noting when trying to interpret the formula itself. The second part of the title of the book itself may be even more important and helpful in answering your questions as well because it directs the reader towards the shaolin connection of wing chun. So where is the connection in relation to the formula. For that we have to look at Tin Yan Dei Saam Mo Kiu which is a shaolin method of training which hung fa yi and chi sim weng chun both utilize in their training methodologies. So, briefly, Saam dim yat sin is how the formula is put into motion by not allowing 3 (elbow, hip and knee)points to make contact on one line. Secondly ngh douh lunk muhn fa kihn kwan five ways and six gates influence the universe is in reference to the daoist phylosophy of self realization through first hand expereince in this particular case the idiom is making the point any physical experience must come through those six gates as defined by the five lines of the formula. Lastly these are trained making use of Tin yan dei samm mo kiu. If any of these elements were to be missing from ones training that particular training would no longer be considered to be following the wing chun formula.
originally posted by kpm
So please help me out here Tony. Please help me understand how this “HFY Formula” makes HFY so different and so much more “scientific” than “popular WCK.” I don’t see anything here as explained in the new book that is different that what I have learned in the past. HFY has certainly repackaged a lot of the concepts in new “gee wiz” scientific-sounding terminology. But once you get through the complicated language, the concepts seem to be pretty standard WCK.
To understand the principles and concepts behind the formula you must first acknowledge the basis for their existance,Tin Yan Dei Saam Mo Kiu . Hung fa yi is a principle based science not a technique driven art. This can not be over stated. Describing the formula based on technique or simple definition is inherently wrong the concept can not be seperated from the principle which can not be seperated from the proper application of applying the proper energy at the correct moment in time and space and expect to understand the original intent behind the system.
When you state that there is nothing in the formula that you haven’t already learned by studying popular wing chun if that includes the concepts/phylosophy of Tin Yan Dei Saam Mo Kiu you are correct if that includes the conept of saam dim yat sin you are again correct also if that includes the concept of ngh douh lunk muhn fa kihn kwan yes you are correct if not then I submit that these wing chun concepts can possibly further your own wing chun development yet they can not fully be comprehended by merely reading them or hearing them described on the internet they must be expereienced first hand.
originally posted by kpm
HFY has simply put a name to something most everyone else has already been doing.
originally posted by kpm
It seems that HFY has just given a name to something that other WCK players were doing as well.
Somtimes a little clarity is all that is needed in helping someone advance ask any marine how valuable attention to detail is or how important are the little things and I am sure they will tell you they can often mean the difference between life and death.
originally posted by ernie but it makes people feel better when they have something solid to hold onto call it a security blanket of sorts ,
Actually Ernie it is possible some would refer to your expectation of chaos as just such a blanket because it is possible that we could be talking about removing that chaos that you would be looking for, or wing chun could be considered that blanket maybe we each have our own blanket which are more clearly defined by x+y=u everytime and maybe it is possible to train for x and y because if they are attributes then naturally they can be trained for so I think we agree more than we disagree, any how always a pleasure.
Thirdparty, your analogy did not mention that the second shooter’s weapon shoots further and that he was shouting out of range of the first shooter before the second shot the first, in other words I disagree with your analogy and let my statement stand you are more than welcome to agree or disagree but your argument was not persausive enough for me to change or restate my original point.
I am going to assume you were addressing me, as my handle is thirdperson, and I don’t see any other “third” types around.
“He was shooting out of range of the first shooter before the second shot the first” What??
Are these two people shooting at each other when you read my analogy? In my analogy, they are simply comparing weapons, not shooting at each other.
I know that I am more than welcome to agree or disagree, I just wish I understood exactly what I was agreeing or disagreeing with. Would you please clarify?
"By staying here’ are you refering to the combatcentres in your link under your signature? Have you read there version of WC origins? Do you know by chance where they got there info??? Come on mate!! Tell us!
I was actually refering [sic] to KFO, not my own organisation, which I though was pretty obvious given that my post appeared there. But …
We at Combat Centres have a pretty open but sceptical attitude to the history thing. Much has been written, said and will continue to be written, but nothing that shouldn’t be taken with a whole shaker of salt has yet come to light. Including no doubt, recent books. I have yet to hear of anyone defending themselves with history (Though I can understand people getting bored to death, I guess …)
IF I want to know where they got there [sic] info, you should go to the article on the site co written by my Si-hing, Alfredo del-Brocco and <hushed, reverent tone>Benny Meng</hushed, reverent tone>. If there’s something wrong with that info, I guess Benny’s at least partly to blame. If he’s holding himself up as an authority on WC history, unlike Alfredo, then I guess he should accept the greater responsibility. At least you should respect your seniors (Benny) enough not to disparage their what I hope were serious efforts.
I’m flattered that you took the time to look at our humble little site
Consider yourself told … “mate”. Come back any time, unless that back seat’s already full!
Anerlich,
I have nothing what so ever against combatcentres, or you for that matter. I just thought your last post was pretty harsh, and somewhat hypocritical considering where you train, and where they got a good deal of their historical data.
You should try driving once in awhile… it aint all what it’s cracked up to be.
Alex
duende,
Sorry, it appears I misunderstood your intentions.
If your referring to my backseat driving post, perhaps you are right. My experience with lineage-specific forums (we used to have one on a website in a previous incarnation) is that they tend to stick to the party line of the organisation and allow no criticism of that party line, warranted or otherwise. My post prejudged HFY108 without even having been there, which I agree was unwarranted.
I’m still not going there till I get the book, and I will still prefer a forum which is non-lineage-aligned, even if people act immature sometimes (Which I personally enjoy on occasion).
Not stating categorically that this is what has happened here, but I think that if you use a forum to promote yourself or your products, you should also be prepared to accept whatever comes back at you as well, good or bad, rather than expect people to shift to somewhere you find more amenable to your marketing or organisational philosophy. As I think Rene said, your critics are more valuable than your fans.
As for the complete/scientific post, I stand by what I wrote there. Learing to fight effectively will IMO always be more heuristic and personal, than deterministic and universal.
Anerlich,
I agree with everything you said…
I think the real problem is the web in itself. In that it allows for great communication and exchanging of ideas. However unfortunately at the same time it also allows for some extreme mis-representation.
If you ever won the lottery and made a trip to San Francisco you’d be quite surprized.
got to get back to work…
Alex
If you ever won the lottery and made a trip to San Francisco you’d be quite surprized.
No doubt …
OTOH, I think if anyone from your crew came to Sydney the same would be true.
Why did I post when I did?
Well, the thread was quite interesting and some of what the HFY guys have to say makes for interesting reading (as has always been the case)… and then there is Chango.
Sure, there are others on the forum who seem to like slagging people off - but Chango’s attacks really bug me… mostly because they are personal, and largely because as a Sifu he’s not exactly doing the other HFY members any favours. There never seems to be an ounce of respect.
Of course, there will always be other HFY guys here who will post after Chango’s musings and kiss his butt. :rolleyes: But as far as I’m concerned a Sifu should not act the way Chango does.
It’s that simple. A Sifu indeed… but perhaps not in deed.
There - the Black and Blue rant over. 
As for the rest of the topic of discussion, I have little to add as I’m fairly new to this art. But regardless of time in, respect should always be present, IMO.
Hi black & blue, I think Sifu Noaks has a history with the people he addressed that goes back further than your or my short time training Wing Chun Kuen?.
It seemed nothing more than a harmless jape highlighting the faults in the posts and also the fact that these same people given the chance are so quick to correct HFY members?.
If you were to meet Sifu Noaks you would be amazed at his skills and knowledge, he has devoted 25 years of his life to Kung Fu and it shows.
black & blue, have you had a chance to check out HFY108.COM yet.
Regards
CD
Hello,
I checked out your forum when it first went up, and it was, as to be expected, a little quiet. I haven’t checked it since, but will no doubt do so.
As a forum used mostly by your family, I would expect it to be a little friendlier than here (a more open forum not affiliated with any particular line).
But like I said, I’ll have another look.
Duncan
Ps. Chango’s posts still make me frown. Regardless of his skills, he still ought to be a little more respectful. He is, after all, a representative of GG.
Just my opinion.
Just finished read the VTM book while travelling.
The book give me an impression// interpretation of perhaps HFY is an original of evelasting spring, a sister of Chisim Weng Chun and Hung gar, or shao lin art as VTM claim.
Mr. Biu, who later become Hung Gan Biu, while joining the Red Dandana uprising, some how incoorporate to his Shao lin art what he was taught by the Praise spring opera ancestors . he is a senior of his own family, But, a later comer joining the opera ancestors of praise spring, thus, not that senior within the ring of praise spring ancetors, as his name, Hung Gan Biu has idicated, and HFY is his further evol art .
It is a fun book to read and certainly VTM has put lots of effort to it. It present a different view to look at Praise Spring which is view from an angle of IF Chi sim Weng Chun as tjhe reference of Originality of Praise the Spring , which as any one’s opinion can be accept , but don’t have to be agreed.
Similarly if someone write a book that Praise spring actually was started by Gordon ? the westerner general of Cheng Kuo-Fan, and based western boxing as the reference of originality of Praise the spring. that is also acceptable,
but again don’t have to be agreed, since everyone is free to make any kind of assumption or claim.,
It is great that VTM write abook to view Praise Spring from different angle and different set of reference. This book add another color to the Praise Spring. IMHO, VTM did a great job with the information they have based on the angle they see.
Hey Chango,
I just simply ask the question what Changed Rene’s thinking?
No, you didn’t, but if that was really the point of your posts, I’m happy to answer:
I did some research. I read historical works by experts in the field who quickly and compellingly dismissed most of the creation myths, especially the ones involving Shaolin.
I think the point of confusion is this:
I let the information mold the working theory, and not the other way around. In the end, I don’t care if WCK came from Shaolin, Emei, England, or South Central. I’m just interested in the most reasonable theory possible. Right now, I believe that the information points rather strongly to a non-Shaolin origin, but I will happily evolve my opinion again if/when a compelling argument (and dogmatic personal belief does not constitute that) is made.
See, if you latch onto a theory and make everything dependant on that (especially if its a business and not just an academic endeavor), you develop far too much attachment, and far too much bias, and it becomes too easy to dismiss or rationalize information that doesn’t match your pre-existing theory.
But, hey, if you prove your theory, if you show the work and not just talk about it and your own personal beliefs, my hat will be off to you. I will say congrats and thanks a million for sparing the rest of us the work, and I will ship you the (not too expensive) beverage of your choice. Same offer goes to Hendrik and anyone else working on this.
Unlike others, I’ve shown my opinion can and will evolve. And I welcome others to show likewise.
Comments on Hendrik’s post in brackets:
Just finished read the VTM book while travelling.
((I just got through looking at the book. I have not read it word for word.))
The book give me an impression// interpretation of perhaps HFY is an original of evelasting spring, a sister of Chisim Weng Chun and Hung gar, or shao lin art as VTM claim.
((Weng and wing are different characters…apparently different labels for things that are quite different from each other.
The “history” sections are full of elaborate assertions. The assertions are just that- assertions-not really academic history.
But no matter-if people want to believe the asserions- ok by me.
By way of analogy- different seminaries teach elaborate but differring church histories. Primarily a matter of belief.
At least to me we are a long ways off from havinga reliable history of wing chun- particularly beyond the red boat era.
For me it gets shaky beyond Leung Jan.
But neither do I assume that Leung Jan invented it.
The complexity and depth of the art points towards long term incremental development.))
It is a fun book to read
((Really? We differ. The long strung “historical” assertions were putting me to sleep. But then some of Rene’s and even hendrik’s
posts have come close to putting me to sleep. too. I am a bit of a history buff but not necessarily a wing chun history buff and the discussions did not wet my appetite))
and certainly VTM has put lots of effort to it.
((That is very evident- and I wish the HFY folks well in their art))
but again don’t have to be agreed, since everyone is free to make any kind of assumption or claim.,
((My point too))
((BTW there is a little grauitous rant in the book about internet and forum pseudo experts. Surprising since the HFY folks have made such a concerted effort on the net to push HFY..
Many of the really good wing chun people I know are not net chatters. So judging wing chun one way or the other based on net forum discussions is premature.
The postures and stances that I saw in the book were sufficiently different and provides contrasts to major Ip Man wing chun lineages. Different-not necessarily superior.
Some of the stuff is old wine in new bottles-lines, gates, biu fingers up-biu fingers down etc.
I agree though that hands on training from knowledgeable instructors is the best way to learn wing chun. back to square one- the search for first rate kung fu instructors is not easy and is part of the quest of a serious kung fu student.
Good luck to those who choose and do HFY. Sorry for typos.
Shut eye time.))