wing chun history

Oh Boy,

Sandman 2 Wrote>

shrug Just wondering, didn’t see any info in your profile, and as vocal as you are on here I didn’t expect you’d mind telling me where you are coming from so I could better understand your point of view.

How does 0.80 posts per day make me any more vocal than 1.41posts per day, and I didn’t realize you would be able to work out my point of view from my profile:confused:

Sandman 2 wrote>

People don’t have “accidental slips of the tongue” in a written format so why don’t you just drop the insinuations.

Considering, I don’t think we’ve communicated in a written format before, I just found it to be a very strange question:confused:

Sheldon Wrote>

I don’t know if that makes my questions here any less valid

Sandman 2 Wrote>

That’s a matter of opinion.

And we’re all entitled to our own;)

Rene Wrote>

Maybe if he made up some story about secret Yuan dynasty origins, you’d find it more believable?

Maybe that’s what it’s missing;)

Rene Wrote>

Robert does all his WCK with the same body structure, as numerous people have replied to you and your group before. On the cover, he’s demonstrating the Gulao Fu Fook point with his own structure.

OK, I found something it looked very similiar to, I’ll find it and post it later.:wink:

Rene Wrote>

The one problem I’ve encountered is with folks that lack their own knowledge but have been told things by politically and or ego/financially motivated “sifu” and in good faith accepted them, and gone out and unfortunately acted as trolling agents for those “sifu”.

Is there a hidden meaning to this, Rene:confused:

Terence Wrote>

I thought the moderator closed this discussion.

No he closed the other one that was about HFY, this one was about Gu Lao/Koo Lo and Sifu Robert Chu;)

Terence Wrote>

Perhaps, Sheldon, you could explain where I “called foul”?

Maybe the above statement:confused:

Terence Wrote>

Spoken like a true troll.

Terence if you need to call me names that’s fine, I noticed your doing it and Rene has also.
Amazing, I don’t think in all the time I’ve ever had any type of dialogue with you two have I called you any type of names:confused:

Sheldon:D

Hey Sheldon,

Maybe that’s what it’s missing

Could be. P.T. Barnum said no one ever lost money overestimating the intelligence of the American public. Maybe you could use the omni-pugilism hook to show how your family secretly introduced British bare-knuckle boxing to the ports of Canton which was mixed with local fighting methods to create WCK! Then you could retire off the tape series and school franchises! 8P

OK, I found something it looked very similiar to, I’ll find it and post it later.

Cool. Looks aren’t everything though. Try it out one day and see if you can find something that feels like it. LOL!

Is there a hidden meaning to this, Rene

None, the meaning is quite plain and rather obvious to anyone whose been online over the last couple decades. Also funny how the great feuds of the past led to organizations fragmenting and many of the old feuders now mellowed and productive, yet new upstarts have taken their place. No one learns from history.

RR

Rene has also

I don’t think I’ve called you a troll, though I have asked you to stop trolling, and you should. I’m sure you have a lot of personal experience and opinions on WCK that you could be sharing rather than just popping up to play accuser for a group you claim not to belong to, stirring up a lot of bad PR for them in the process.

RR

Rene,

Rene Wrote>

popping up to play accuser for a group you claim not to belong to, stirring up a lot of bad PR for them in the process.

Hey, now you doing it, acusing me of belonging to something I don’t;)
I didn’t realise you were the “PR Police” for the VTM, I don’t see how me asking questions about Gu Lao/Koo Lo and Sifu Robert Chu is bad PR for the VTM:confused: If they had a problem with me I’m sure they would let me know;)

Sheldon

O seeker, Geezer has an open eye!

Terence if you need to call me names that’s fine, I noticed your doing it and Rene has also.
Amazing, I don’t think in all the time I’ve ever had any type of dialogue with you two have I called you any type of names

Sheldon


Sheldon,

Beyond good and beyond evil,

Names calling cannot make a master out of a fool.

Geezer is the certified Clint Eastwood.

Unlike these self-claimed WCK experts,

Geezer harms no living thing.

Om mani peme hum…

Humm…

Why is it no history thread can be created that people who claim not to be part of the VTM don’t spring up to attack everyone else and basically make the thread unreadable?

What is it about other people having different opinions, or different levels of acceptance for what is termed “research” that they find so threatening? Why must they continually attack others in transparent attempts to ruin the threads and prevent any serious discussion? And why are they allowed to continue this when its obvious by their lack of participation on any other threads that its their only purpose in posting here?

And why are they obsessed with Clint Eastwood when Alison Eastwood is obviously much more interesting? :smiley:

T–i started this thread …"they"didnt…and it got highjacked by both of you…not one post is on wc history…other than mine…
i think asking where and who tam yeung learned from is a fair question. from what i have seen there were only 3 students of leung jan in koolo village…non of which tam yeung learned from(the name listed ,of who tam yeung learned from was not one of the three that the fung family documented..doesnt mean he didnt learn..just means that there isnt a written record of it in the fung family)…so i am curious who he learned his points from.

geezer—i think asking where and from who garret gee learned from is a fair question . as well as how to contact him(wong sigung). one which has never been answered. supposidly there is a hfy school in h.k but it has not been found as of yet.

if anyone could just answer questions without the drama perhaps me may make some head way in understanding each other. when people or organizations make claims…that begs for questions…i would want to answer all questions put to me…to represent myself and my family in a respectfull and truthfull manor as well as eduacating people in who we are,what we stand for..what we teach…and how we put our money where our mouths are

anyone interested in real conversation???
anyone see the hung gar article i mentioned?

chango—i really look forward to seeing chi sim…especially the weng chun kuen form and the sam pai fut form

has anyone seen the 5 ancestors fist system? it uses a ygkym thats pigeon toed called the sai ping mah…it has the lead stance chien to…it has a side shifted stance kok to…as well as the t stance and hanging stance…which koolo uses…its main influence was fukien white crane…got internal training from lohan fist…evasion and palm strikes from monkey…the ging pattern is very close to wc. …actions such as tun (swallow), chum(sink),to?sp(spit) and (float)forgot chinese …its a bit more external,imo than wc but methinks it shows a common ground in the fact of the white crane system being its mother. wc has so many characteristics that white crane does…
my question is this, on the boats wwb and lyt learned wing chun…dai fa min kam practised weng chun…so i doubt dfmk learned from wwb like chi shim weng chun lineage suggest(via chu chong man)…so…was there 2 differant systems? practised at the same time independently? did someone take wing chun and mix it with hung gar to make weng chun(for example dai fa min kam could have been a hung gar practitioner and when he learned wing chun…created a hybrid) or did someone take certain ideas from weng chun and mixed it with hakka to make wing chun?
additionaly is what andreas hoffman calls weng chun…anything like white crane? or is it more like hung gar?
ive noticed many families share forms…cho family, weng chun (chu chong man family), nanyang, chan wah shuns great grandchildren…all have a fa kuen form…is it the same form? my understanding is that fa kuen is not weng chun…chu chong man imported it from things he learned from a wong sifu…if that is true than why do all these other branchs of wc have it in there curiculum???
brian

Hi Brian- Iam generally skeptical about a definitive wing chun history and my posts have reflected that I think. It is a methodological nightmare- but we can nibble on it here and there
and make some sense now and then. Some points in the context of your post:
1.Asking substantial questions on Garret Gee’s immediate HFY ancsetors is legitimate in my opinion as well.

  1. I am not in WT and I do not buy many things that Leung Ting says. But he does come up with interesting bits of opinions and information. I have been looking at his large “Roots” book which I purchased recently- even though it has been out for a while. I dont have it handy at this momemt- but I think he mentioned about 4 Leung jan students in his retirement days. He died in about 4 years after “he came to die” in his village. There are some pics of where exactly Leung Jan taught in his last days. I can see a retired prestigious master teaching some key moves to some members of his village- whether that constitutes a system is an epistemological issue about systems etc. I ignored Leung Ting’s comments on himself and found the book useful though controversial in parts.

  2. Southern hands share many things— the phoenix eye fist,
    the ginger fist, the swallow/spit antimonies, po pai jung,
    some sticking, some versions of ygkym… but trying to assume from that that hung kar is a mother etc is speculative- there can be different flavors to similar ingredients. Masters wouldnt always give others the details- retaining perceptions of an edge.

  3. I dont think that the five ancestors are wc ancestors either…
    wc deliberately developed usage for human joints rather than animal forms. San chin breathing so common in many southern arts is deliberately by passed in wc with “natural” breathing.

  4. As I have mentioned before Chan’s influence peremeates many things and it is not illuminating to associate it with any one wing chun lineage.

sic/finis/no ad hominem remarks

joy

Brain wrote:

[i]i think asking where and from who garret gee learned from is a fair question . as well as how to contact him(wong sigung). [/i]

There are two issues with asking to meet Grand Master Wong Ming.

The first has to do with the nature of secret societies and relates to one’s station in life. Similar to the CIA in secrecy, members of a secret organization must maintain discipline and not be noticed by the authorities. There is a sworn duty to uphold secrecy and many lives are on the line when someone is captured or information is compromised. This level of commitment and secrecy is quite different as compared to a private citizen trying to maintain privacy.

There are numerous reasons for a private citizen to want to be private. Taking Sun Nung as an example, living through the Cultural Revolution and dealing with the Communists - his secrecy is not voluntary compared to someone that volunteers for spy work or military operations. I know of someone that visited China and made a special effort to locate Sifu Sun Nung’s group (while the Grand Master was still alive). This person spoke with members of the local martial arts community (including Wing Chun people), people leading classes in the park, and others - he eventually made contact with someone that knew a former location where Sum Nung’s group practiced. While Sun Nung managed to maintain his privacy, neither his life nor the lives of his students are forfeit (after the time of the Cultural Revolution, of course). So why does he try to maintain secrecy? What is he hiding? If it was possible for him to remain hard to find, how much more time and effort would an organization acting under life and death secrecy? Think about this: would a CIA spy come out and write a book about his actions while he was still active - naming names, events, and locations? Even after retiring, spies are not free to speak about their past. Not if they value their lives and the lives of their families. We can speak freely because we are private citizens.

The second issue has to do with responsibility. In the secret societies, you can do pretty much as you wish - but your actions must not call attention to anyone else. So, if I decide to speak in public about what I know, I alone must bear the responsibility for my actions and must not call attention to anyone else. Given the above two restraints, if Grand Master Wong Ming doesn’t wish to be found, he won’t. Grand Master Gee was given specific instructions about when you bring out the art and where. The level of dedication and responsibility to act on his Sifu’s instructions 25 years later might not be easy to understand for people that are private citizens. In HFY’s past, many traditions originated in the secret societies. One of the ceremonies was the burning of the yellow paper. This ceremony symbolizes that you have taken an oath not to reveal any information unless you are ordered to do so.

Grand Master Gee was given the responsibility and the authority to bring out the HFY lineage. Now that he has decided to do so, he is very much open. Any person with common courtesy and the simple etiquette of visiting him in person will get an answer to their questions. But as far as Grand Master Wong Ming, I can tell you now - he chooses not to come out and no one asking is going to force him.

To understand this, you must understand the traditions of the HFY lineage. In the HFY lineage, respect and responsibility to the previous generations is maintained. I have seen actual photos of Grand Master Wong Ming. In fact, there is a picture of him in the upcoming book but it is not the actual photo. Our of respect for the ancestors, only an artist’s rendering of the picture is allowed to be shown in something so public as a book. Grand Master Wong Ming was not a public figure and it is not Grand Master Gee’s place to bring him to the public. This is not an issue of hiding anything - it is an issue of tradition on the HFY lineage. Grand Master Gee wants to give proper credit to the ancestors of HFY but he must also obey the oath to not reveal them to the public. I know the more jaded of the forum cannot accept this but not accepting reality doesn’t change it one iota. If we want cross-references, Mai Gei Wong knew Dr. Wong Mong, they trained in the same park. Grand Master Gee had met Mai Gei Wong, as well.

Being a HFY member, I have information about the lineage that is not open to the public. If you wish to know inside information - become an insider. OR, at the very least, ask respectfully. I don’t owe any body anything - except my kung fu family.

Is there anyone that denies that the background of Wing Chun is connected with secret societies? All oral legends point to some form of anti-Qing activity. If you agree with this supposition, then I suggest that for those genuinely interested, do some hard searching on the secret societies.

And let me just state this: If you (general you) have a question of me, I may or may not answer. Just because you ask, I don’t own you anything. I’m not in your debt. When people behave immature and rude, my interest in sharing goes even lower.

Instead of re-circulating the same old gossip or starting random rumors as Terance has done in the past, go direct to the source. Speak to Grand Master Gee in person with etiquette, courtesy and humility, just as Sifu Meng did back in 1998. Gossiping or guessing at the nature of things, as is often done about HFY, is ultimately disrespectful to the HFY lineage and Grand Master Gee.

Ultimately, reality can only be experienced through Hou Chyun San Sau - and it requires action.

[i]supposidly there is a hfy school in h.k but it has not been found as of yet.[/i]

I can share a little bit about this - a guy (who’s name escapes me but he’s in the Wong Shong Leung family) visited Grand Master Gee. During the visit he mentioned that there was a HFY school in Hong Kong. One of the four indoor students of Grand Master Wong Ming, sihing of Grand Master Gee, was quite active in Hong Kong, especially in the New Territories, but he would only have taught his students the fighting applications and very little of the actual system itself. The students were trained to fight, not to understand the system or teach it. If the school in Hong Kong is from this group, they are teaching a saan sau version of HFY, not the system with inside information.

Jeremy R.

**** that’s a long post.

–And let me just state this: If you (general you) have a question of me, I may or may not answer. Just because you ask, I don’t own you anything. I’m not in your debt. When people behave immature and rude, my interest in sharing goes even lower. --Jeremy

Jeremy,

Thanks for sharing!

Not only long- but didn’t really address the history issues that Brian raised. Incidentally- its Brian not Brain-unless its intended as a complement.

I think that folks in any lineage of any art can believe in their own lineage legends and stories. But claiming them to be historical facts does require both logic and evidence. The claims of historical secrecy does not grant anyone an exception to the common protocols of evidence and credibility. Asking Gee just makes it Gee’s art which one can accept or reject on its own merits.

I dont find the differences in gu lao points to be significant, Different folks can
note different things when being taught,

Originally posted by yuanfen
Incidentally- its Brian not Brain-unless its intended as a complement.

??? Why mention this?

Originally posted by yuanfen
…the common protocols of evidence and credibility.

What exactly are the common protocols of evidence and credibility?

Why Is The Secrecy, So Hard To Believe???

I have a question for everyone that doubts the Triad/Underground/Secrecy parts of HFY??? Have you ever been involved with a criminal element in any way???

Now this isn’t a question “I” need an answer to, but just to make you think about the code of conduct in those circles???
“Honour Amounst Thieves”, if you’ve always been involved with people on the right side of the law it makes it hard “I” think to understand this way of doing things:confused:
In London, from my experiences, you never ever “Grassed”(snitched) to the law, on any one no matter how much you wanted to.
The mentality was that the law was the lowest form of life, now you have to understand this is how I was brought up and allot of the people I was around had that same way of thinking.

I now live in the United States and have realised that it’s not a healthy way to go about doing things, I look at the Law and understand and respect them for what they are doing, but I still understand my past way of thinking.
So why am I telling everyone this, because of past experiences I understand that the VTM and HFY owes no one anything expect to the people in their circles and I also find it very believable that this system was spread and supported by the secret societys over the years.

I’m not a sheep, I’m just someone that finds the information that they are bringing to the table very believable because of things I can relate to, and I would prefer that they keep bringing the information;)

Disclaimer, I am in no way shape or form involved in any criminal activitys and this story above can be viewed as pure fiction;)

Hopefully this helps “certain” people understand my thought process on this;)

Sheldon

Errr…

Geezer… I think you’ve been watching too many Ray Winston films and episodes of Eastenders with Grant and Phil.

:rolleyes:

B&B

B&B Wrote>

Geezer… I think you’ve been watching too many Ray Winston films and episodes of Eastenders with Grant and Phil.

If you like;)

One thing, it wasn’t East London but West and you’ve pretty much confirmed what I was saying;)

Sheldon

Hiya,

“I understand that the VTM and HFY owes no one anything expect to the people in their circles” Geezer

I can see how the HFY and ANY close-knit group, secret or otherwise, doesn’t owe anything to anyone. But considering that the Ving Tsun Museum was established on the promise of presenting concrete evidence of wing chun history of an unbiased nature to be shared by all wing chun practitioners, it sounds like they owe us something. This is true of ANY organization that makes such claims, and the VTM should be no exception.

My question is, if the HFY is a secret society, why do they care if no one understands them or doesn’t “believe” in them, or whatever?

“What exactly are the common protocols of evidence and credibility?” JK Walz

It means history is not rewritten just because a “grandmaster” says so. I say “grandmaster” in quotes because somehow there’s wing chun, ving tsun, ving chun, wing tsun, yong chun, ving cheun, and wing cheung (to name a few), and they all have their own “grandmasters” (half of which learned from the same teacher!).

The real irony is, we don’t trust a present day master to portray a non-biased and non-legendary history of our world, and yet there are an aweful lot of people who believe in the Bible.

LOL - You crack me up

Yes… West London, the home of organised crime and gang shootings! :rolleyes:

I lived in Ealing for a number of years, not really a hotbed for hatred of the police.

What have I confirmed, that we’ve both taken tube trips from Perivale to Upney? :wink:

And criminal gangs are not necessarily comparible to secret societies… the identity of criminal members in London, and their affiliations, are often anything but ‘secret’.

The Answers are here!

Posted this before. One more time so this foolishness will stop.

HISTORY OF GUANGDONG MARTIAL ARTS ISBN7-218-00434-2

The only work by chineese historians on the arts of Guangdong based on all available records. Written by authors not interested in proving any particular claims.

Book also covers the Secret Societies (Triads) and their role in southern martial arts . Covers all arts of Guangdong not just Wing Chun.

For good or bad the information in this book will answer many questions posed in this thread and others.

For those whose belief is based more on faith than reality little may change. Oral myths can always be changed to fit the facts.

Hi Brian,

Byond1 wrote:

T–i started this thread …"they"didnt…and it got highjacked by both of you…not one post is on wc history…other than mine…
i think asking where and who tam yeung learned from is a fair question. from what i have seen there were only 3 students of leung jan in koolo village…non of which tam yeung learned from(the name listed ,of who tam yeung learned from was not one of the three that the fung family documented..doesnt mean he didnt learn..just means that there isnt a written record of it in the fung family)…so i am curious who he learned his points from. B1

Sure it is a fair question. Robert learned the 40 point from Kwan (who Rene has also met) and I’ve seen Kwan’s notes myself (I’ve even a copy of some of them); certainly Kwan knew YKS lineage as other YKS folks have seen Robert’s YKS. So one wonders why Kwan would teach Robert a “real” lineage (YKS) and another that he made up (40 point). Kwan claims to have learned from Tam Yeung. Tam apparently still lives in Gu Lao. Certainly some inquisitive chap should take a trip to Gu Lao and look into this and some other things (there is still a wealth of information to uncover there IMO). Tam told Kwan who in turn told Robert, that he learned from Yim Sae who had learned from Leung Jan (if memory serves - I’m not using my notes). There is IMO always the problem of accuracy when relying on oral (remembered) “history”: did Kwan misunderstand Tam? Is there info about who LJ taught that we are missing? Was Yim Sae a nickname? Did Tam Yeung make it all up? What we do know is that the 40 point system looks very similar to a number of other san sik systems that come from Gu Lao; the history of the 40 point (LJ returning to Gu Lao, teaching a San Sik platform, etc.) is consistent; etc. But no one is claiming that the 40 point is the true or original LJ system or anything like that; it simply appears to be one of many lineages that have come from Gu Lao. No BFD, but certainly worth looking into further. TN


Hi Sheldon,

Geezer wrote:

I’m not a sheep, I’m just someone that finds the information that they are bringing to the table very believable because of things I can relate to, and I would prefer that they keep bringing the information. G

I too prefer that they keep making information available to all of us. And I hope that they, or others, can make genuine progress into WCK’s history. But while you may find the present information “very believable” (and that’s fine and certainly your perogative – but “believable” is not the same as “factual” or “true”), please understand that some of us do not (and not because we have a bone to pick). It’s not the information that the VTM or HFY presents that I find objectionable, but the way it is presented – as fact, as true, as authoratative when it is not; it is simply the HFY oral tradition. And until they can “back it up” with real research and real facts (“connecting the dots”), it is conjecture like any other lineage’s claim. Andreas Hoffman (Jee Shim) reports much of the same information as HFY (descending from Shaolin, Chan philosophy, etc.) but you don’t see me or others criticisizing him because he presents it as his lineage’s oral tradition; he may believe it (and I suspect he may), but he hasn’t tried to force it down our throats as “the truth”. “The truth” is that some lineages can prove their lineage back to the Red Boats and that no lineage, so far, has been able to prove it past that. Other lineages, such as HFY, haven’t even been able to even prove it that far. That doesn’t mean IMO those lineages are false or anything, but only that they shouldn’t expect us to believe they have “cornered the market” on WCK’s genuine history when their history is, in fact, less proven than those that can prove lineage back 4 or 5 generations (to the Red Boats). TN

Terence