Hendrik - Not sure what you mean. Could you please rephrase in a less obtuse manner?
Hendrik wrote: Since you and me are both one of many succesors of different system, we have the responsibility to clarify things for the Martial art public and future generation of Wing Chun Kuen and Weng Chun Kuen. This is Purely technical nothing personal.
Hm…
GM Hoffmann is the gate keeper of Chi Sim WCK.
But Hendrik is just a student (Successor) of Cho’s Emie SLT.
Know this.
Seek wisdom, and purity.
Quickly clear the way.
We will begin to be individual masters of our world.
“RollingHand” wrote:
GM Hoffmann is the gate keeper of Chi Sim WCK.
But Hendrik is just a student (Successor) of Cho’s Emie SLT.
As I understand it, Chi Sim Weng Chun Kuen is what Andreas calls his branch of weng chun. He apparently has fused the teachings of several different lineages descending from Fung Sui Ching (and Dai Man Kam) into his own curriculum. Many of the lineages descending from Fung Sui Ching do not call themselves Chi Sim WCK or recognize Andreas as “gatekeeper”. This is not meant to take anything away from AH - from what I’ve seen (video) and heard, he is highly skilled and knowledgeable.
As far as Hendrik is concerned, you are (not surprisingly) incorrect. And, btw, he is highly skilled and knowledgeable too.
Terence
I respectfully request that all trolls and stalkers leave this thread alone and allow those of us interested in polite, productive discussion to continue without having to sort through all the petty personal attacks.
This thread is not about Andreas Hoffmann sifu or Hendrik Santo sifu, it is about Ng Jo and Wing Chun Kuen. If this topic doesn’t interest you, perhaps you can start your own and let those of us it does interest get back to the discussion.
(Perhaps there is some way for the Forum admin to help us in this regards?)
So, anyone have any constructive thoughts on the sample outline I provided? Anything that would immediately show it as an impossibility, or perhaps suggest it is unlikely? (No heresay or personal opinions, please, only substantive reasons with explination).
RR (wondering who can hang…)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rolling_Hand
[B]Hendrik wrote: Since you and me are both one of many succesors of different system, we have the responsibility to clarify things for the Martial art public and future generation of Wing Chun Kuen and Weng Chun Kuen. This is Purely technical nothing personal.
Hm…
GM Hoffmann is the gate keeper of Chi Sim WCK.
But Hendrik is just a student (Successor) of Cho’s Emie SLT.
Rolling Hand,
Astute observation… Andreas Hoffman is a true Grand Master of a system… he is the only member of the Chi Sim Family to study and master the material and teachings of all five Chi Sim Lineages… he has thousands of students and grand students spread throughout the world… it is simply unforgivable that these internet punks with limited experience and no training in Kung Fu manners (i.e. Hendrik and Terrence) should speak to him as equals in the field of Kung Fu… THIS IS THE SINGLE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH INTERNET FORUMS… there appears to be no respect whatsoever for the professional qualifications and accomplishments of true masters attempting to answer questions from self-appointed ‘Experts’…
In the case of Hendrik and Terrence, there is most definitely a hidden agenda… there is another force at play behind their continual attempts to embarrass Wing Chun masters who acknowledge their Shaolin roots… they have no desire to unite the Wing Chun world on a common journey for truth… their goal is ‘division’… without possessing any real credentials and certifications themselves, they have a need to pooh pooh other’s legitimacy in order to make themselves feel more complete.
Your continual challenges of their self-inflated posturings and tomes are most sincerely appreciated by literally hundreds of Wing Chun players here in Arizona.
Again, thanks much!
Richard Loewenhagen
Richard,
As someone who has previously published on one theory of WCK’s possible origins, it’s great to see you contributing.
It would be even better, however, to see, rather than something about individual personalities, if you chose to share your insights on the topic at hand?
(Please note, however, as successor of Chi Sim WCK, Andreas Hoffmann sifu is an important voice to have in our discussions. And, though he chooses not to make his standing in his system similarly public, Hendrik Santo and the records of the Cho family are just important.)
Originally posted by reneritchie
though he chooses not to make his standing in his system similarly public, Hendrik Santo and the records of the Cho family are just important.)
Rene,
It doesn’t matter what other think.
In Yik Kam lineage. People Take pride in how to serve and help other fellow human constructively, and preserve what the ancestors passed down. Not about fame , money, or title.
The Chinese said, Ye De Fu Ren is the teaching principle of Yik Kam lineage.
Hendrik
Another thing in history is that. Taiping revolution or Shang Hai revolution didn’t save China. But Ghandi did defeat Bristish fire arm without the secret martial art and all this kings — as in Taiping, East king, west king…
Time has changes. it is 2003. people has to learn to live in a world of civilized and not using 200 years old not functioning solution to solve today’s issues.
Rene,
Andreas and me are at peace and communicate well.
What is the concern of other people who has nothing to do Andreas and me? Ha Ha ha? What is thier agenda?
As for the my Agenda, it is simple. Everything is open under the SUN.
Why should we all change our ancestor to other then Ip Man, YKS, Leong Jan’s… Cho Soon,… passed down?
Why should we all agree because someone claim so? Where is the data? where is the solid evident?
Why should I agree on some one who has no idea at all on what I am practiced and trying to tell me my ancestors are wrong?
Even more ridiculus trying to twisting Chinese Chan’s teaching from the patriarch.
My advise are:
Show professionalism.
Do not trying to bent the direction and always, when there is no data or evident, attact the people who has different view.
Keep Technical, get the facts and show it to the world.
Fact is always better then Smart Arguement.
Hendrik
PS. imagine if I start to challenge the lineage of some one with the evident of Chan lineage, the code of Hung Mun at the red boat era, the authenticity of the transmision of that lineage family trees. Will people get really really up set? Sure right? The insecure people will react even worst.
On the other hand, when a lineage is based on facts. confident with thier ancestors, confident with thier arts, It doesn’t matter what other said.
People just never learn to not do what one doesn’t want other to do to them.
My sincere advise for some people is that. No one is perfect. But, it is a good time for some to think deeply otherwise, it is one drag oneself down. and Don’t blame on others.
Hi all,
I quitt my writing on this forum because of the personal bickering.
If someone is interested in Weng Chun Kuen he can write me personal or is invited to visit me on my yearly seminartour in USA (May 2003), Europe, Australia and China. I´m always open for friendship exchange, open chisao/kiusao and historic research with all masters and teachers of our Kung Fu art.
Andreas Hoffmann
Originally posted by Andreas Hoffman
[B]Hi all,
I quitt my writing on this forum because of the personal bickering.
Andreas Hoffmann [/B]
Hi Andreas,
Great Idea. I second you.
Hendrik Santo
thank you ..thank you thank you…rene, hendrik, hoffman sifu…just what the doctor ordered…your sharing is an inspiration to me…and before some idiot makes an ignorant comment that will make one of us or alll of us run and hide…lets keep the ball rolling…
hoffman sifu—i look forward to your trip to ohio in may( my birthday is may 8th..what a great gift)…i will be there with bells on and will have emptied my cup -------
from my understanding dai fa min kam taught fung siu ching
1) weng chun 11 hands
2)saam pai fut
3) jong—heaven, man, earth
4) 6.5 pole
5) mutter/fater dao
is this correct or incorrect?
is the weng chun 11 hands learned first?
do you teach this before fa kune?
my understanding of chu chong man’s fa kune , is that it is slt application form of weng chun? is this accurate or am i mistaken?
hendrik sifu—so cho family slt contains (basicaly) slt, ck, and bj all in one compact form? this is the essence of yik kam’s wck? o.k here is a big question…what type of jing does cho family learn in the slt form? what about ermei 12—could you please teach us a bit about what is taught in there system? its from buddhist origins?
ren----love it----your organization of the material in your post is imo the right direction…weng chun white crane was originally a few forms that taught jing patterns…the rest was san sik drills…application forms were organized by ( i think…if memory serves..lol.) pan sifu…18 lohan palms had an influence in some divisions of white crane…
your family is one of the few that has wing chun and weng chun in it…that keeps the information seperate..instead of mixing it like chan wah shun family did…did yks learn saam pai fut or weng chun 11 hands from fung siu ching? is your pole form fung siu ching? or leung yee tai variety? do you feel like listing the various jing/energies that yks/sn wc teach’s? as well as what jing is from fung or what is from fok? in the next 2 days i will post the weng chun white crane jings and principles that are common between wck and white crane..sorry its taking long time…my girlfriend just got out of the hospital and the only computer i have to use is in the library…
but we can than compare the jings from yks wc, to white crane to hopefull hendrik sifu and hoffman sifu will list some as well
richard loewenhagen—you disrespect yourself and others by posts like that----how much do you really know about hendrik? have you ever spent time with him learning his system? meng sifu teaches that this is the only true way of learning something…through the experiance of it…is this a lesson you missed? you call the inheritor of yik kam cho family wck lineage and internet punk? someone who studies buddishm from a recognized lineage master? i cant believe the vtm has anything to do with you…no museum on the planet would allow someone with your lack of respect and manners onto there staff
Byond - I think it will take Hoffmann sifu some time to trace back how Chi Sim has developed from Dai Fa Min Kam to the present day in each of the different branches, and what each succeeding generation of master in each branch has brought to the system. In any case, I think the knives, in English, is Father & Mother (FuMo) (you had the German there, ya?)
WRT Yik Kam/Cho SLT, it is not a compact form, and is probably 4-5 times as long as the Yip Man SNT, maybe more (it really is, basically, the 3 forms + 1 more all performed one after the other and you could just as easily break it up as such).
WRT Yuen Kay-San & Weng Chun Kuen, it is my understanding he did not learn any linked sets since he was already familiar with WCK and Fung Siu-Ching was already very old. Instead, they spent their time together working on advanced application, especially close body methods (locks, throws, counter locks, etc.) some of which goes beyond was is normally seen in WCK but what is found in Weng Chun Kuen. Our pole form is not like Weng Chun, to the best of my knowledge, but very close to what you see in other WCK (6.5 points with little repetition). We don’t (at least in my experience) list the Ging separately for either teacher, as I believe, slight ‘flavor’ aside, Yuen synthesized them into his own approach (as espoused in his ‘12 Methods’).
WRT Hendrik, please remember he descends from the Malaysian brother (Cho On) and the brother who remained in Panyu (Cho Chuen) still has its own lineage (though from what I saw it was quite similar to Hendrik - perhaps because Hendrik’s sifu studied with both brothers during his lifetime).
RR
hi ren–leaving the library—real quick…
how about you break down some of the general jings yourself?at least slt level? im going to do it for wck and than list the white crane…
what on earth happened to your forum? i went there to post on fok bo chun and there was noting i cot find..ya?
Hey, all you Catholics! No disrespect or anything - I’m purely technically minded… I’d like you to write a technical paper on the Southern Baptist’s theology… still laughing at others, Hendrik?
jeremy—check your private message
passing_through - this is a historical and technical discussion thread and I respectfull request that you not pollute it with petty personal attacks. If that is your only interest here, please start your own threads so the rest of us can avoid them. (Perhaps the admin can help with that?)
byond1 - That’s an interesting idea. Perhaps when you have time you could start a separate thread for that? I’m not sure what’s up with my forum, I’ll go take a look…
[i]you not pollute it with petty personal attacks[/i]
Neither personal nor petty… merely making a point.
Accepting that HFY or Chi Sim is the “primordial” wing chun, should it be expected that either system could explain more modern wing chun? This is a situation analogous to the Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformations. Hendrik asked an inflammatory and ultimately empty set of questions to Sifu Hoffmann, asking for Sifu Hoffmann to explain the treasures of Cho Ga Wing Chun. I could just as easily turn the question to Hendrik and ask that he explain the treasures of HFYWC and/or Chi Sim Weng Chun. As he obviously feels that his lineage is the origins, he should be able to explain everything, in the proper language of HFY/Chi Sim… You ignored his line of logic yet you attack mine.
[i]If that is your only interest here, please start your own threads [/i]
My only interest here is in sharing information on HFY and the VTM - to people with a genuine interest rather than those that ask loaded questions to attempt to show others up. That I end up posting against ignorance and arrogance, only speaks of those asking the questions.
Brian, checked the PM and I’ll be in touch some time this week.
Jeremy R.
Rene,
[b][I]
It would be even better, however, to see, rather than something about individual personalities, if you chose to share your insights on the topic at hand?
(Please note, however, as successor of Chi Sim WCK, Andreas Hoffmann sifu is an important voice to have in our discussions [/b][/I]
You are half-right. The point the Sifu Loewenhagen is making is the lack of respect being shown to the real keepers of systems of WCK. Sifu Hoffman is the successor of the Chi Sim system. The point is that the demands and comparisons that Hendrick makes are inappropriate at best regardless of his half-hearted comment that there is no insult intended.
You’re right in saying, “Andreas Hoffman sifu is an important voice.”
Mike
quote:
Originally posted by Andreas Hoffman
Hi all,
I quitt my writing on this forum because of the personal bickering.
Andreas Hoffmann
Hsanto wrote:
Hi Andreas,
Great Idea. I second you.
Hendrik Santo
Chango-- Hendrik are you going to keep your promise this time? I think you said you wasn’t going to post any more before. A man of your word??
Hsanto wrote:So what does Dai Fa Min Kaam speak? ha ha ha
How about Tan Sau Ng? He speak mandarin? HuBei diarect? why this pice of writing was written in Fujian? Ha ha ha let you do some more reseach while I am taking a rest.
Chango-- All jokes aside and not going into this subject to deep. I would like to ask Hsanto doesn’t his Chan teachings teach him about ego? It seems he suffers deeply from his own by such childish, disrespectful,and uncalled for remarks. Maybe your book was written in fujianese becuase of your founders low postion in the family!! People high up in the ranks of the revolutionary activities would not risk things by having any written words. So it is hobvious this was not a concern of the Cho founder. So this would mean he was not taught the complete system only what he needed to know at the time! Now not having the complete system he would have to mix things here and there. I mean would it not make since that he had to make a chop suey sorta speak becuase he did not have all of the peaces? I mean come on you lump all of your forms into one and call it (SLT) little Idea? Plus he had no problem writing about it during political unrest? So how important could he have been to the preservation of the art? It just does not add up. say what you like. Cheun Ng was written about by non martial artist as having high skills and ranking amoungst the red boat troupe and Hi martial skills. can we say the same about Yik KAm?
let’s just say that he did a good job of mixing everthing in a pot. I have no issue with that. I have a few friends that do the ulitmate fighting thing they call it Mixed martial arts. I guess if you can get it to work for you that’s great. But it’s without question not the origin of WCK or at least no other WCK other then yours. What gives you the right to speak for the other system? who showed you them and which ones have you seen?
Originally posted by reneritchie
[B]Richard,
As someone who has previously published on one theory of WCK’s possible origins, it’s great to see you contributing.
It would be even better, however, to see, rather than something about individual personalities, if you chose to share your insights on the topic at hand?
(Please note, however, as successor of Chi Sim WCK, Andreas Hoffmann sifu is an important voice to have in our discussions. And, though he chooses not to make his standing in his system similarly public, Hendrik Santo and the records of the Cho family are just important.) [/B]
Rene,
I have never seen any evidence that the Cho family elected Hendrik their spokesperson. At least provide some evidence that they consider him a Master or Grand Master of their system. If no such evidence exists, I will continue to resent his treatment of a Grand Master as his equal on subject matter he has yet to master. It bespeaks poor manners.
Regards
Richard