You are welcome.
Ving TSun Museum certainly did a great job on presenting thier view.
The Museums presentations was an objective one.
Presenting infront of the chinese headman of Shao Lin, Wudang, Emei, Taiji, White Crane of Fujian, Yee Chuan , Hsing Yee…and chinese historian Chin po-chi ..etc are fun meeting which I am looking forward to.
Right or wrong the experience would be priceless.
You are welcome.
The Museums presentations was an objective one.
That would depend on who you ask, others view it as subjective for various reasons. Take a poll on what people think and you’re likely to see it pretty split, much like the recent election. You’re a HFY person, so it’s understandable why you feel the way you do.
I respect Benny and the museum for all the time, work and expense involved in all their research. I still consider him a friend. But even friends can disagree. At the end of the day though and based on my own experiences with the Friendship Seminars, I tend to agree with Hendrik - nobody can speak for all of wing chun or any other person other than themselves.
Speaking of what other wing chun lines do and don’t do why did Augustine Fong change the Yip Man wooden dummy form. If your marker is the fact that others either do it or don’t do it where are you scoring this one bad or ugly you just ruled out good.
Well, we could just ask why Yip Man consistently changed his mook jong form as well over the years. Yip’s mook jong form (much like his wing chun) was a living, breathing entity. Leaving out the crosspolinization between students that’s gone on since his death, about the only continuity in that form is usually in the first three sections. After that, choreography and organization can differ greatly. Saying statements that about Augustine changing the Yip Man wooden dummy form would denote that there’s some sort of standard Yip Man Mook Jong Form ™ to be changed in the first place. I haven’t seen such a beast yet. To appreciate the depth of Yip Man’s wing chun, I think you really have to look at and appreciate all his students over his entire life time.
Just as to appreciate wing chun as a whole, you have to look at it and appreciate it across it’s entire spectrum.
As for Victor’s original post that started this thread, it had some good points and bad points, including some contradictive ones. Saying statements about putting the past behind and then going on about Leung Ting doesn’t exactly promote that view. I also thought his description of wing chun in the “good” part (the lines, the interaction, the forms) were descriptive of his own branch and experiences and not wing chun as a whole. Some branches have more than two weapons for example, or may view their geometry a bit differently. But I wouldn’t take offense at it, because it’s just a statement on his exposure. I think his intentions are good, however some here may disagree with his methods.
Marty
Response to Canglong’s post:
Moving forward is a good idea and hendrik trolling is true but Joy is another matter.
((Really?!!))
We never see Joy aka the cheerleader
((Cheerleader is your own labelling. For now I will not respond in kind))
question hendrik for making statements claiming that his white crane water palm is the origin of tan sau
((That is hendrik’s hypothesis. Accept, reject, ignore- different choices. I dont agree with everything that Hendrik says and disagree with him on some things. But I find some of his posts to be provocative.. I dont do Cho family wing chun- but I respect it. Same for YKS and Koolo. I regard hendrik in friendly terms but his social friendships are different from mine.BTW- Hendrik did not bring up HFY in this round- Victor did -in his reference to Meng-Gee claims. Hendrik was just responding to the duende reminder on HFY claims on Shaolin and HFY as opposed to “common” wing chun. So lets not make the thread fuzzier than it already is))
and modern day wing chun which could have easily made the ugly post not to mention hendrik’s claims that Chi Sim Weng Chun is not wing chun
((Hendrik didnt say that on this thread. But for me I am persuaded by Ip Man’s own statement that weng chun is different from wing chun. Lots of different styles out there. Confucius’s advice on the need for redtification of names wont mean much in this context. Success has a thousand fathers and new grandmasters are likely to continue emerging))
at all his credentials for such statements being his ability to fill out the membership request for this forum.
((Same for anyone filling out a KFO form-grants no authority to you or anyone else.))
Joy are you jumping out on that limb as well or do you only care to open your mouth and send your erroneous comments in the direction of HFY.
((Are you talking to me? Rather impolitely at that. I really dont pay attention to your posts- but I am responsding because your rference to me caught my eye. I have exactly zero interest in HFY-I think I have stated that fairly clearly now and in the past. Get it?And I have read the HFY book and gave it away
-with pleasure))
Speaking of what other wing chun lines do and don’t do why did Augustine Fong change the Yip Man wooden dummy form.
((Speaking? Who is speaking? OH- You are -and changing the subject ad going far afield - desperate
argumentation. If you revisit my website there is an interview with my Sifu Fong on his thinking on the dummy form.I wont waste bandwidth by reproducing the whole interview here. Sifu Fong speaks for himself - and he has. See the article/interview-it was a real question and answer session. If you know your Ip man history…1. Ip man himself tinkered with the dummy form at different times- subtracting and adding. 2. there was a separate set of dummy kicking motions. 3. Ip man himself tinkered with the role of jam sao in slt. 4. the principles of wing chun are the key-
Ip man’s, Ho kam Ming and Fong each have their individualised approach to the same principles in the details.. There is no hung gar, mantis, taiji in there. Same wing chun logic based principles- evolution in teaching methods and applications… a natural process.
5. Very few people learned the mok jong form directly from Ip Man. HKM did. Again- see the Fong interview on my site.
Any other desperate move to bring in extraneous things to the good bad and ugly thread started by Victor? As I mentioned the best part was Victor’s attempt to bury the WT?TWC hatchet—though not so long ago he was stoking the fires himself in this funny farm with an imagined Boztepe/Mazza matchmaking scenario. Vistor has his own chemistry.IMO he made a mistake in judgment- his choice- in even mentioning the Gee-Meng claims-best ignored))
I prefer not to argue with you and waste my time. I have an interest in Buddhist history independent of wig chun and Hendrik.Joy
LET’S GET REAL
Let’s not turn this into yet another HFY vs. the WORLD flame thread…shall we?
Who cares whether or not tan sau came from white crane? And who cares whether or not Augustine Fong changed the Wooden Dummy?
How about some more up-to-date questions…like whether or not those WD changes make sense in today’s fighting environment?
And when does tan sau work? When is it better to use some other move?
In other words…LET’S GET REAL!
All the B.S. about history, lineage, and politics doesn’t serve the future strength of WING CHUN.
Can you tan sau against a single leg takedown that was first disguised by a straight lead hand punch?
Isn’t this a more interesting and pertinent question?
Can the Wooden Dummy be used to develop power on the strikes and kicks in ways that haven’t been done before? If so…any ideas about taking the arms and leg out (for example) and use it like a punching bag? Any merit to that? Padding the body of the WD up and going full power…good idea? Bad idea?
Allowing the body to move (don’t keep it stationery)…so that it slides from side-to-side when struck…good idea? So that it simulates a person’s reaction when struck just a little bit more than before?
TO BE OR NOT TO BE…that is the question.
Wake the F#CK UP
Victor,
Sadly getting real will never happen when people spend there energy fighting over a dead past
A complete and total waste of time in my book
Spend time developing and sharing skill and training methods
This would mean you really care about wing Chun and the talent that has been passed down
Instead people try and lock down there little place in history by way of association like that equates to anything other then hot air
Man shut up and train
Develop and grow
Stop trying to connect yourselves to a past generations accomplishments they are not yours
Good lord if people spent half the time pulling the head out of the past A$$
And put that energy into the future then perhaps wing Chun wouldn’t be turning into the laughing stock it’s becoming in the modern world
Sometimes for all the intelligence and passion you guys have your just a down right embarrassment
Take off your gung fu slippers, silk suits and old terms
Put on some Nikes a decent sweat suit and get off the time machine
Train and do your part
Instead of being a bunch of babies crying about yesterday
Rant over back to the tofu turkey
Ditto on the get real part! I said what we believe. PERIOD!!! Short and sweet like. Fukk… if you don’t like it, get off your ass and write your own book.
Next…
Originally posted by duende
[B]Ditto on the get real part! I said what we believe. PERIOD!!! Short and sweet like. Fukk… if you don’t like it, get off your ass and write your own book.
Next… [/B]
The problem is BELIEVE doesnt make thing REAL.
Writing a book doesnt make thing REAL either.
and sometimes Reality itself changes with location, period of time…
Hendikk,
So another words you don’t believe you are real because therefore that would make you less real??? Is that part of your White crane wonder twin power?? Form of… Chan imposter who has no REAL knowledge.
Your a joke
Oh and now I see you went back and added to your post…
something about reality and time and space… or location rather.
:o Your unabashed ability to aproppriate other’s knowledge and apply them to your own misguided end never fails.
Yes… Time, space, and energy is common knowledge… but your usage of them in a Chan context is something new.
Can this thread just be renamed to “Wing Chun: The Ugly”?
Originally posted by Edmund
Can this thread just be renamed to “Wing Chun: The Ugly”?
ha…ha…ha…ha…ha…ha…ha
Now that was funny, dude !!!
I tend to agree with Hendrik - --martyg
The fact that Robert Chu is your Sifu plays no role in that?
In other words…LET’S GET REAL!—Ultimatewingchun
One would need to understand the concept of real first that doesn’t seem to be the case here or you wouldn’t need to continually ask the same questions in different threads.
Originally posted by Edmund
Can this thread just be renamed to “Wing Chun: The Ugly”?
hahahaha that is great!
Let me repeat something I wrote earlier in the thread:
“But in the final analysis…I believe that Wing Chun is a great fighting system whose exponents and lineages need to spend more time getting together for real sparring tournaments…wherein participants shake hands before and after the matches…learn from each other…sort out what works and what doesn’t work…regardless of which WC system it came from…”
AND LESS TIME ON THE INTERNET THROWING CRAP AT EACH OTHER.
Now Tony…that’s an example of what I mean by REAL.
On another note that might be pertinent to this thread…I just noticed that someone around here has this as an avatar by their signature:
“Life is what’s happening in the meantimes we are busy posting in Gung Fu vs MMA’s threads.”
Let me see if I can translate this into simple English:
“STOP REMINDING ME…that I might wet my pants if someone ever broke through my wing chun infight range into a clinch/takedown/groundfight game.”
Originally posted by canglong
[B]
[Quote]I tend to agree with Hendrik - --Martyg
The fact that Robert Chu is your Sifu plays no role in that? [/B][/QUOTE]
Due to your creative editing, not sure what you’re refering to as it could be taken two different ways. The original statement before you clipped it was “At the end of the day though and based on my own experiences with the Friendship Seminars, I tend to agree with Hendrik - nobody can speak for all of wing chun or any other person other than themselves.” As stated, my views have to do with the Friendship Seminars - which I was doing long before I was involved with Robert (those started in '98 in fact). And the statement also refers to everyone, across all branches. Not the VTM/HFY specifically. That nobody can speak for anyone else, and no other branch or method other than their own. We all can certainly give opinions on matters, which is another issue entirely.
If by editing you meant to imply I agree with Hendrik regarding his views on the VTM/HFY/etc. that was clearly not stated. I however did make a statement in the paragraph before the Hendrik quote regarding your mention of objectiveness on research, where I mentioned it’s also understandable with your views being a HFY person. I was going to pre-emptively answer your comeback (“…Robert Chu is your sifu…”) then as well, but figured I’d give you the benefit of the doubt on not shooting back such an obvious comeback. Looks like I should have gone with my initial instinct on how you’d respond. No, my views on the subject were on record on the WCML and in person going back to at least '99, long before I had anything to do with Robert (whom I bai si’d in January of 2001, before that I did TWC from '92-'00). Perhaps you’re not aware of that because you’re newer to the “scene”, or if you heard otherwise you were simply missinformed.
Marty
Watchful Dragon
Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
[B]On another note that might be pertinent to this thread…I just noticed that someone around here has this as an avatar by their signature:
“Life is what’s happening in the meantimes we are busy posting in Gung Fu vs MMA’s threads.”
Let me see if I can translate this into simple English:
“STOP REMINDING ME…that I might wet my pants if someone ever broke through my wing chun infight range into a clinch/takedown/groundfight game.” [/B]
Victor- I don’t agree with what you say.It’s my own business!
You are not happy about it?..That’s your own business but you should try to stay polite at least!..
BTW,my sign was not written with you in mind…Mind you?..
Martyg,
Since you don’t know me your post said I am either biased, ignorant or a liar my post was just returning the favor.
Now Tony…that’s an example of what I mean by REAL.
Parlati Sifu,
As we now see anyone can make a post action to match words are what is now needed in my opinion.
Canglong,
canglong wrote: The fact that Robert Chu is your Sifu plays no role in that?
I’m also a student of Robert Chu and I don’t tend to agree with Hendrik on many things (sort of shoots down your alliance theory). His views on the history of WCK are worth looking into IMO (though I haven’t accepted them as true), as are the VTM’s. What you and the VTM may want to consider is that some find his articles (co-authored by Robert) – but not his posts to this forum!! – more compelling than the VTM’s because Hendrik typically tells us the information he is relying on, where that information came from, and his reasoning for drawing his conclusions from that information. This allows us, at least to some extent, to examine not only his conclusions but evaluate the process he used to arrive at them. The VTM, on the other hand, typically only tells us their hyperbole-laced conclusions (and that prose style doesn’t smack of impartiality btw), relying on argument from authority ("believe us because we are authorities). This may be sufficient for noncritical thinkers, but it doesn’t permit the reader to evaluate those conclusions for themselves. Moreoever, this lack of transparency in how the VTM reached their conclusions suggests that something is amiss (otherwise, why not provide the raw info, its sources, the chain of reasoning, etc.). If the VTM wants to win us over, they need to change how they present their info.
Originally posted by canglong
Martyg,
Since you don’t know me your post said I am either biased, ignorant or a liar my post was just returning the favor.
If that’s what you want to read in to it, that’s your problem - however those words were never typed. If you need to read in to things and continue grasping for straws to vent as you have in your last few responses, it’s obvious you have issues beyond what’s going on here and should seek professional help.
Marty
Watchful Dragon