There are some indications that point to the fact that Yip Man might have learned some Weng Chun from his uncle, Chu Chong Man. (I, for one, certainly tend to believe that it’s probable).
But we don’t really know for sure.
They are two different arts - but do seem to be related to each other.
As to the 30%…
Don’t know. Could be.
Again…no clear evidence to put a number on it.
Victor while I usually stay out of this since Hendricks last thread seems to have been removed I will offer you this.
There are government records that mention Ng Mui as being real and exsisting in the late 1700s in addition Ng Mui is listed as a 5th generation student of the Fong Chi Niang white crane line. She is lsted in the written records of difefrent white crane lines in Taiwan, China and S.E. Asia. These records are a couple hundred years old and the writing may go back to Fong herself or at least her first generation students. there are about 8 styles of White Crane that trace back to Fong.
These records were made long before anyone decided to market wing chun or white crane for that matter.
There are also some very strong physical indications of the tie between wing chun and white crane. If you ever get a change to see the form Bai He Ba Fen you will recognize the wing chun. This is the form ofr inch power in white crane.
If you see Mei Hia He white crane plum flower hands you will think you are looking at the forst part of SLT. Many other physical ties as well.
Okay, Hunt…
If those gov’t records exist - that would be a good piece of evidence to build the case that Hendrik tries to make.
Victor over a year ago ,maybe 2 I posted on here that anyone truly interested in martial art history would read and translate the book “History of the martial Arts of Guangdong (sp)”.
This was a book published in China in 1980 that was written by over 100 Chineese historians that went through hundreds of years of government records in the area trying to trace the martial arts myths and legends. Wing Chun was just one small chapter in the book. Anyone truly doing research in China should and would track down this book. I have only ever seen a small translation. I can tell you when it was published it ****sed off many in the martial arts community in china and hong kong. Kinda burst a few bubbles .
Terence wrote:
[SIZE=3]>> " . . . You last post shows how bereft your arguments are – it is a simple matter to prove Robert exists, that he knows WCK, and that he taught me (go to his seminar in San Diego and ask him yourself!, look at his driver’s license, etc.). I can introduce you to lots of people, many on this very forum that have met him (even folks that don’t like him and wouldn’t have reasons to lie), there are photos, videos, books, etc. You know, all those things that don’t exist for Wang Ming. . . "<<[/SIZE]
I know Robert and have met with him on a few occaisons in NYC’s Chinatown. So he does exist . . .grin.
That was a good post Terence. It was to the point and not offensive.
PR
Hunt:
I don’t need any convincing that White Crane style had something to do with Wing Chun.
One look at their bong sao (about 30 years ago) did the trick for me.
And I’ve seen some of what Hendrik has posted recently of some guys doing a White Crane form…no doubt it looks a lot like SLT at certain intervals.
Never had any problem believing the “GIST” of the 5 elders story - with White Crane and Snake style being two of them.
Clearly bil sao and bil jee look like Snake hands to me (by way of example).
But again…for all practical purposes - don’t see where all this is going?
Victor,
I dont think its going anywhere improtant. For those like me ,we just enjoy history, have a BA and MA in it. Others seem to feel attacked, history has always been this way. From governments on down no one likes facts to get in the way of their story or what they are selling.
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
[B]There are some indications that point to the fact that Yip Man might have learned some Weng Chun from his uncle, Chu Chong Man. (I, for one, certainly tend to believe that it’s probable).
But we don’t really know for sure.
They are two different arts - but do seem to be related to each other.
As to the 30%…
Don’t know. Could be.
Again…no clear evidence to put a number on it. [/B]
this is exactly what i’ve heard…GGM Yip Man had studied wing chun that is only a “portion” of weng chun…than he started to learn weng chun from Chu Chong Man and Wai Yan…but for a “secret” reason he was kicked out from the class…
It soud reasonable…or not?
check out this web page: www.iwka-wengchun.com
Terence,
The bottom line is this: the VTM/HFY should understand that folks outside of HFY/VTM aren’t going to accept their historical conclusions as true if they aren’t willing and able to prove them (to have them independently verified). They can come up with all the excuses in the world for why they don’t want to provide proof, and all that does is increase our skepticism.
I do not speak in any official capacity, but my understanding of HFY history is that there is an oral history and some written family documents that most of which haven’t been made public. Two lines from the hou kuet - or oral idiom that have been published in MKF are:
saam dim yat sin ding yung san
Three Points, One Line, Establish the Original Nature
ng dou luk muhn fa kin kwan
Five Ways and Six Gates, Influence the Universe
Can family documents be historically and independantly verified? Until we know different we can assume not. Can oral idioms or traditions be historically and independantly verified. Again, until we find different we can assume not. Is this a huge issue?
My understanding of the HFY lineage is it was a secret society. Find me historical and independantly verified records of CIA operations in the world for the last 200 years. Oh, and good luck.
There are certain intersections in family history with independant verified historical records. Family history shows Cheung Ng as in HFY lineage - Tan Sau Ng. We share this and are met with condescending and obnoxious statements and demands that these are not “independantly verifiable”. Well no duhhhhhhhh.
It’s a family history of a secret society. There was a Hung Fa Wui Gun (Red Flower Association) that you can read about in Cantonese Opera history. Family history says this was a public front for a private secret society of HFY members. Any “independantly verifiable” public figures connected have most likely all have long since been executed.
Does this mean that HFY is making all the “excuses in the world”? You judge. Is there skepticism? Boy howdy - read through this thread. Is there attitude? Plenty of it. Do we have to tolerate all the nice little stories about cold fusion and children’s playgrounds by our oh so talented parable writer Rene? It seems so. Do people like Terence call HFY a “marketing invention by Garrett Gee?” Yes they do. It’s ridiculous. Anybody with any reasonable background in martial arts can recognize it as a system, even from reading the MKF book.
For those more balanced and objective - HFY is a family lineage of WCK that used to be a secret society that is now public. Is that so complicated? Is it “oldest”, or “most perfect”? Who cares? Isn’t it all about how any system/teacher/fellow students helps you develop your kung fu fighting skills and personal character?
2 cents out.
Rgds,
Dave Milner
5 animals followup
Victor,
The first martial art I studied as a teenager was a Shaolin 5 animal kungfu called Vo Lam that had migrated to Viet Nam.
In WCK I recognize very clearly crane and snake influences. I also think the phoenix eye fist in SLT may be leopard, but I can’t remember - I think crane may have that too.
In the general Shaolin training we’ve studied, there are very clear influences of tiger and dragon.
Either way in my opinion both arts clearly have animal kungfu influences.
Rgds,
Dave
Hi Dave,
You seem like a sensible person, so let’s look at your post:
You wrote:
I do not speak in any official capacity, but my understanding of HFY history is that there is an oral history and some written family documents that most of which haven’t been made public. Two lines from the hou kuet - or oral idiom that have been published in MKF are:
saam dim yat sin ding yung san
Three Points, One Line, Establish the Original Nature
ng dou luk muhn fa kin kwan
Five Ways and Six Gates, Influence the Universe
Can family documents be historically and independantly verified? Until we know different we can assume not. Can oral idioms or traditions be historically and independantly verified. Again, until we find different we can assume not. Is this a huge issue?
**Not unless folks claim that they do verify something.
My understanding of the HFY lineage is it was a secret society. Find me historical and independantly verified records of CIA operations in the world for the last 200 years. Oh, and good luck.
**And as I explained on the HFY foum, that may be perfectly true but it then leaves HFY in the position of not being able to prove their history is true. Of course, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true, but that it can’t be proven. And since it can’t be proven, it could also be untrue. So I don’t mind the VTM coming forward with theories or saying HFY oral tradition is such and such, but I do object to them calling it “the truth” or saying they’ve verified these things.
There are certain intersections in family history with independant verified historical records. Family history shows Cheung Ng as in HFY lineage - Tan Sau Ng. We share this and are met with condescending and obnoxious statements and demands that these are not “independantly verifiable”. Well no duhhhhhhhh.
**But that’s like me claiming I’m related to George Washington – perhaps my oral traditon does link me to GW, and he’s a real person to boot! So what? To prove my relationship to him, I need to prove every step of the line – lineage – from me to him. Without doing that, I can’t prove I’m related to him.
It’s a family history of a secret society. There was a Hung Fa Wui Gun (Red Flower Association) that you can read about in Cantonese Opera history. Family history says this was a public front for a private secret society of HFY members. Any “independantly verifiable” public figures connected have most likely all have long since been executed.
**Look, I can claim to have been taught the “real WCK” by a blind buddhist monk that asked me to keep it secret. I can say anything; I can come up with all kinds os stories. How do you know which is true and which isn’t? Proof. Independently verifieabel proof. Lacking that, what can you say other than that I haven’t been able to prove where my WCK comes from?
Does this mean that HFY is making all the “excuses in the world”? You judge. Is there skepticism? Boy howdy - read through this thread. Is there attitude? Plenty of it. Do we have to tolerate all the nice little stories about cold fusion and children’s playgrounds by our oh so talented parable writer Rene? It seems so. Do people like Terence call HFY a “marketing invention by Garrett Gee?” Yes they do. It’s ridiculous. Anybody with any reasonable background in martial arts can recognize it as a system, even from reading the MKF book.
**And so what? That seems to suggest that you believe HFY is a system, that system had to come from somewhere (and so far I’m with you) and that proves the oral history (it doesn’t). If my WCK is a “system” does it prove Yip Man’s oral history is true – that it came from Ng Mui? Of course not. Yes, I bring up marketing since I wonder why folks like Benny would promote HFY oral tradition, which can’t be independently verified past Garrett, as “the truth”, as “the original WCK”, etc. except to promote HFY (which he teaches for money). When Leung Ting describes WT as “developed by Yip Man as the ultimate expression of WCK”, for example, he’s marketing. He may believe it, but it’s still marketing.
For those more balanced and objective - HFY is a family lineage of WCK that used to be a secret society that is now public. Is that so complicated?
**Let’ be more accurate – HFY is a family lineage that claims to be a secret society that is now public or HFY is a family lineage whose oral tradition says is used to be a secret society. Is that so complicated? Your way of phrasing it suggests it is true (which hasn’t been proven); my way of phrasing it leaves it open as to whether it is true or not.
Is it “oldest”, or “most perfect”? Who cares? Isn’t it all about how any system/teacher/fellow students helps you develop your kung fu fighting skills and personal character?
**And that’s been one of my points, that history doesn’t validate a martial art – personal results do.
Secret Societies were nothing like the CIA. People might say that now to make them sound more compelling, but there is a lot of information available of Secret Societies during the High Qing. They kept records. They even made copies of registers. They would sometimes even hand these out when they started new ‘franchises’. They weren’t that professional. They didn’t succeed in overthrowing even a degenerating Qing empire, after all.
Again, this is a problem when martial marketing is mixed with history. In real historical works, such as Murray’s Tian Di Hui, you can find the history of several Secret Societies, who their founders were, early members, what actitivies they engaged in, etc. There are several known stories about famous teachers knowing passing on fictitious stories throughout the history of MA. It was, and is, a way for them to attract and retain students.
Another thing is that students of a particular lineage should also not assume that what they’re told is accurate, nor what the people who tell them actually believe. They are not always treated as peers, and are not always privy to the actual beliefs, suspicions, motivations, etc. of those who tell the tales.
If you can believe that the other person’s story (be in Ng Mui or Cheung Ng or Jee Shim) may not be accurate, despite many famous and accomplished sifu transmitting it, integrity would suggest each and every story be treated the same. Oral stories are not history, whether it’s your sifu or someone else’s who tells them.
Dave:
You do seem like a reasonable fellow…and I like your posts.
But Terence’s last post was very solid.
I can’t dispute anything he said.
If Benny (and Garrett??) had presented the HFY story without claiming that this is the “verified truth”…then no one would have (or should have) objected.
But marketing is marketing.
William Cheung did a similar thing with TWC…didn’t he?
Claimed that TWC was the original this…from Leung Bik to Yip Man to William that…but without proof. Just circumstantial evidence (ie. - TWC is different).
But that’s not proof.
And of course - Leung Ting did a similar thing back in the 1970’s…as Terence pointed out.
You know what, Dave?..A little less marketing and a lot more Wing Chun ACTION get-togethers would go a long way toward ending needless debates about history and lineage.
Hey guys!
This is kind of out of the blue but since we are talking about marketing and other stuff I want to throw this in!
If Jee Shim is the source of a possible off-shoot version of Weng Chun does that mean he learned it from Ng Mui? Since Ng Mui is supposed to be the founder of White Crane “Weng Chun” and in China there is only one source of Weng Chun and that comes from her so-called branch?
So, one thing I dont understand is if there is a Jee Shim version of her Weng Chun then would it bother the people who believe in that person/story to know that Bak Mei was reported to “Kill” Jee Shim in a fight?
Does that make any sense? Why market a story about someone who was known to have been killed?
Sandman
Posting deleted for being nothing but a long personal attack. Feel free to edit this and respond with intelligent discourse and logical counters to Rene’s statements if you like. But none of the personal attacks please.
Duende wrote:
YOU are the one who should not assume what YOU’VE been told is accurate.
That goes for everyone! Right?
Rene is not one to believe anything. He does his homework. Research WCK lineages, histories, structure, etc. etc.. He was one of the very first people to to have a multi lineage web site with mainly info. from all sources. He reads and translates Chinese and has been to China so you should not point your finger at him. He is the last person to believe anything without looking into and then he still uses More likely/Less likely as he knows thats the most logical way to think!
Regards,
There was a story in IKF maybe 10 years ago about a school that called itself “Wudan”. It had no link to Wudang or Wudang martial arts, but the name was famous and they wanted to attract people to their school, so they used the name.
Check out a yellow pages and you can probably find Shaolin Karate school, in Gi, doing Okinawan Pinan sets, and mixed up Kata. They use the name Shaolin because it makes them more compelling.
Some people say there never was a Ng Mui or Yim Wing-Chun, and the name was just used as a cover, or as a way to tie the art into the popular 10 000 Year Ching novel.
Again, it’s nothing new or unique, but its something serious people who want to discuss the topic seriously need to understand.
Secret stories appeal to the child in all of us, and personally I enjoy a good episode of Alias now and then, but it’s important to mentally make the separation between the stories certain sifu’s spread, and what they might actually believe (which could be quite different), and what might actually have happened historically (which could also be quite different).
Personally, I have heard some sifu tell their students some fancy stories, only to have the studen leave, and someone ask the sifu if they really believe that stuff. The sifu would laugh, of course not, but he had his reasons, and the peers around his table understood them (even if they disagreed), yet the student who heard it might still go out and get into fights over it.
You know, I guess I don’t have a problem with WHAT Terence is saying about oral history being different than independantly verifiable written history. I just don’t like the tone.
I can’t speak to all the presentation of HFY history everywhere, but I can say what’s been presented to me has been “here’s the oral tradition”, here’s the research we did, and here’s what we believe as a result. Not “it’s absolutely true and completely verified, end of discussion.”
So from my perspective, I’ll say I’m likely to consider the oral tradition as it matches up with the system taught than to disbelieve it as the individuals character involved has been proven to me as well. Or until somebody has compelling proof that it is not true. That’s a reasonable position. Those with compelling proof, not accusations, demands, unverified claims, please take this as an invitation to present such.
Terence,
**Not unless folks claim that they do verify something.
— Oral traditions are a verification better than nothing, but don’t carry as much weight as written independantly verifiable information. There exists possibilities that any oral tradition can be a tall story, and any written document can be a forgery.
** Long series of comments on how oral tradition doesn’t really prove anything
— Fine. It doesn’t conclusively prove anything. Point conceded.
** And so what? That seems to suggest that you believe HFY is a system, that system had to come from somewhere (and so far I’m with you) and that proves the oral history (it doesn’t).
— I’m not saying because it is a complete system that proves oral history. I’m saying oral history is a reasonable explanation in lieu of anything better. And that for you to discount a reasonable explanation as a marketing ploy maybe is your slanted read on it - and it comes off as disrespectful and obnoxious.
**Let’ be more accurate – HFY is a family lineage that claims to be a secret society that is now public or HFY is a family lineage whose oral tradition says is used to be a secret society. Is that so complicated? Your way of phrasing it suggests it is true (which hasn’t been proven); my way of phrasing it leaves it open as to whether it is true or not.
— I can buy the second explanation about a family lineage whose oral tradition says it used to be a secret society. The first statement with claims sends a message that you think it’s inaccurate or dishonest.
**And that’s been one of my points, that history doesn’t validate a martial art – personal results do.
— We agree on that point.
Rene,
I liked your last post a little better than your parables.
** Secret Societies were nothing like the CIA …
— They are in that they are both secret. Beyond that I’ll defer to your research on secret societies - you seem to have more info there than I do.
** Again, this is a problem when martial marketing is mixed with history. In real historical works, such as Murray’s Tian Di Hui, you can find the history of several Secret Societies, who their founders were, early members, what actitivies they engaged in, etc.
— I haven’t read that work but it sounds like it would be interesting in getting a flavor for secret societies and their history. It sounds like that one doesn’t mention the Red Flower society. I’m not sure what that has to do with martial marketing, other than you believe that’s what HFY is, maybe.
**Another thing is that students of a particular lineage should also not assume that what they’re told is accurate…
— I appreciate your concern. I try to study, grow, and maintain a balanced objective. I do strive to take people at face value until they prove I can’t.
**Oral stories are not history, whether it’s your sifu or someone else’s who tells them.
— I disagree with you on that point. Many written historical accounts were first oral traditions passed down through generations and then written down. Some were never written down. Especially when you’re discussing periods of time before the printing press was invented and before photography was common.
I do have enough MA background where I wouldn’t ‘worship’ a sifu to the point of non-objective evaluation. Just healthy respect and continued growth in the relationship.
Victor,
Appreciate the interaction.
***You know what, Dave?..A little less marketing and a lot more Wing Chun ACTION get-togethers would go a long way toward ending needless debates about history and lineage.
— I’m with you on that. Unfortunately May this year won’t work out for me, but I’ll look toward another in the future.
Rgds,
Dave
Hi Dave,
You wrote:
You know, I guess I don’t have a problem with WHAT Terence is saying about oral history being different than independantly verifiable written history. I just don’t like the tone.
***And I don’t like the tone that I get from many in the VTM/HFY – the indignant “how dare you!” How dare I suggest that HFY oral tradition isn’t true, am I saying that Garrett is lying, etc. I’m trying to be as critically objective as I can be. Proof exists or it doesn’t.
I can’t speak to all the presentation of HFY history everywhere, but I can say what’s been presented to me has been “here’s the oral tradition”, here’s the research we did, and here’s what we believe as a result. Not “it’s absolutely true and completely verified, end of discussion.”
***That’s great, but I’m sure you have access to many of the VTM’s articles, MKF, etc. Things are presented a bit differently there.
So from my perspective, I’ll say I’m likely to consider the oral tradition as it matches up with the system taught than to disbelieve it as the individuals character involved has been proven to me as well. Or until somebody has compelling proof that it is not true. That’s a reasonable position.
***You are entitled to believe whatever you want. But when anyone begins suggesting their belief is true, then it opens the can of worms and we need to start talking about proof. We don’t accept things we’re told as true because we can be told things that are untrue; we accept things that are proven to be true as true. The fact that the “system” is in your estimation consistent with the underlying oral tradition doesn’t prove anything (WCK is also consistent with what Hendrik is saying, for example). Who has an oral tradition that is not consistent with their martial art? LOL!
Those with compelling proof, not accusations, demands, unverified claims, please take this as an invitation to present such.
***You miss the point – we’re not claiming anything, we’re not claiming to know “the truth”, or to have the “original WCK”. It’s up to the person making the claim to prove it. Just like if you say bigfoot exists – it’s up to you to prove it, not up to the world to prove you’re wrong.
Terence,
**Not unless folks claim that they do verify something.
— Oral traditions are a verification better than nothing, but don’t carry as much weight as written independantly verifiable information. There exists possibilities that any oral tradition can be a tall story, and any written document can be a forgery.
***Oral traditions are the claim that is being evaluated. The claim doesn’t prove itself.
** Long series of comments on how oral tradition doesn’t really prove anything
— Fine. It doesn’t conclusively prove anything. Point conceded.
***And since it doesn’t prove anything, we can’t say it is true.
** And so what? That seems to suggest that you believe HFY is a system, that system had to come from somewhere (and so far I’m with you) and that proves the oral history (it doesn’t).
— I’m not saying because it is a complete system that proves oral history. I’m saying oral history is a reasonable explanation in lieu of anything better. And that for you to discount a reasonable explanation as a marketing ploy maybe is your slanted read on it - and it comes off as disrespectful and obnoxious.
***You have an oral history, I have a different oral history, someone else may have a third oral history – and all are “reasonable explanations in lieu of anything better”. But that doesn’t make any one, or any at all, true.
**Let’ be more accurate – HFY is a family lineage that claims to be a secret society that is now public or HFY is a family lineage whose oral tradition says is used to be a secret society. Is that so complicated? Your way of phrasing it suggests it is true (which hasn’t been proven); my way of phrasing it leaves it open as to whether it is true or not.
— I can buy the second explanation about a family lineage whose oral tradition says it used to be a secret society. The first statement with claims sends a message that you think it’s inaccurate or dishonest.
***“Claim” doesn’t necessarily imply dishonesty – people can make claims that they honestly believe, and those claims can prove to be true or not. When GG says he learned from Wang Ming, it is a claim, it is his say-so, and rests on nothing more. We can’t independently verify it. Does that make it untrue? No. But if we want to talk about honesty, isn’t more honest to say that “GG says or claims he learned from Wang Ming and there is no independent verification of that” than to say "“GG learned HFY from Wang Ming”? The latter actually suggests it is true (and doesn’t even talk about the lack of proof). You may beleive it because you have a relationship with him; I reserve judgment and leave it at “unproven”.
**And that’s been one of my points, that history doesn’t validate a martial art – personal results do.
— We agree on that point.
***Excellent.
Originally posted by t_niehoff
[B]Hi Dave,
… When Leung Ting describes WT as “developed by Yip Man as the ultimate expression of WCK”, for example, he’s marketing. He may believe it, but it’s still marketing…
[/B]
:eek: …i’ve started Wing Chun not from Ting Organization…and it is really different from the other lineage…