I’m going on the facts which have been presented- which are d*mn few admixed with a significant amount of propaganda. I politely reiterated certain questions which have been raised here by Bloodgod and in a variety of other forums. Polite questions are not insults unless you are conditioned to a belief system which views any questioning of its basic assumptions as a challenge. In this case you have repeatedly failed to meet that challenge.
Again- why does HFY, an art supposedly developed in isolation from the rest of Wing Chun, and much older, possess numerous drills and training methods which can be traced to time periods far later than it’s putative origin. There is dan chi sao in HFY. Only Hong Kong Yip Man Wing Chun has dan chi sao, as I understand things. Where did your dan chi sao come from and when?
The method may be good, but the validity of a method is not support for its historical claims.
Southern Shaolin Temple? Look, I don’t pay a lot of attention to history. It frankly bores the p*ss out of me, but weren’t you initially claiming this stuff was from the Red Junks? What’s the offical origin at this point in time? Point me to a link? Which article? Am I confused or has your origin story changed significantly in the last couple of years?
I’m not trying to insult HFY, just asking questions, which seem to receive progressively more belligerent and off-topic responses.
If you don’t know the answer, say so. Trying to bullsh*t your way through something only hurts your case. Read one of your posts and substitute the name of another art. Consider how your discourse scans in that light.
I guess my post was unclear, too detailed, or you just wanted a black and white answer.
Here’s the black and white answer:
Kiu Sao- dates back before Shaolin
HFY Chi Sao- spawned from Kiu Sao in Weng Chun Tong (location: Southern Shaolin Temple) when Time and Space Concept developed
The gray-scaled answer has been posted already.
Rest assured, the truly interested participants of this forum expand their own research beyond this forum. The VTM members have done the research and distributed their findings out to the public via international magazines for the past 2-3 years. To view these articles many can found on www.mengsofaz.com under the academics section. and further information can be found on www.vtmuseum.org
Also, 200+ pg book on HFY history, combat, and philosophy will offer much more information which is scheduled for a 2003 release.
In response to the arm-wrist Kiu Sao/Chi Sao question: They are not the same thing. Arm is general, Wrist is specific in use. Please refer back to my previous post. If you feel they are, can you please tell us what is your detailed understanding of Kiu Sao?
side note:
According to your last post to my Sibok Chango, I must ask you who is being insulting or insulted? Chango has not come close to the language (despite the asteriks) you are using. Refrain from your abusive vocabulary to my Sibok, or any other participant on this forum. Also, Please remain respectful to others on this forum whether you feel they deserve it or not.
You asked me a question about the origin of Chi Sao, which of course implies a historical interest. Yet in your post to my Sibok, you say you are NOT interested at all. Regardless, My previous post addresses your questions and includes sources for you to research on history if your interest rises.
Hopefully the others at the seminar will see your post and answer for themselves but speaking only for myself I would say yes. It is clear that the hung fa yi chi sao originated from the hung fa yi kiu sao which was born in the weng chun tong of the southern shaolin temple in the late 17th century as documented by the Ving tsun museum.
don’t even try to tell me what to do. If I’ve offended Chango’s virgin ears by saying that it sounds like he’s bullsh*tting rather than answering, tough.
And yes, history bores me, especially in martial arts. I know a good bit of it, but tend to view it as a ‘he says, she says’ collection of self-serving mythology. You can take that personally if you like, but it’s really a broad generalization which reflects my views on human nature.
The history posted on on the VT Museum and Arizona sites raises more questions than it answers. No sources or references are posted (even oral histories can be referenced). At least a brief discussion of the reason and evidence that Jeung Ngh is the same person as Taan Sao Ngh is crucial to the whole history. The lineage presented from 1800 to 1970 seems to involve about 4 people before reaching Garrett Gee, which seems odd. Dates and places of residence might lend some support to this. The whole pre-Red Junk era is the most controversial portion of your history so what sources support it? What’s the documentation on the Southern Shaolin temple? Is this an archeological dig being performed by the Chinese government? If so, it should have generated some publications which others can examine.
Show some primary sources if you want academic respect for a historical theory.
Now for the dan chi sao issue- so your claim is that dan chi sao was an original part of the art from the Weng Chun Tong of the 1600s which was lost in all other lines besides HFY, and re-invented by Yip Man in Hong Kong in the 1950s? What’s the choreography of your basic dan chi sao patterns?
Chango’s posts are generally quite insulting without being informative. Heat 5. Light zero.
And, merely constantly repeating vague ideas is the basic ingredient of both marketing and propaganda.
If the statements claim as some have in the past that other wing chun including the Yip Man lines lack this or that and propaganda is all that is offered on this list- ofcourse one can expect responses.
Merely distributing one’s opinions is hardly research.
The impression I get is of a group of people staring at a bright light. They can share the experience, but can’t adequately describe it to others, or perhaps even to themselves.
Your words clearly express the limitations of this thread. Your mind is already made up.
<snip>And yes, history bores me, especially in martial arts. I know a good bit of it, but tend to view it as a ‘he says, she says’ collection of self-serving mythology.
–now all that is left is for you to put your fingers in your ears and begin repeating “I’m not listening! I’m not listening”.
<snip> don’t even try to tell me what to do. If I’ve offended Chango’s virgin ears by saying that it sounds like he’s bullsh*tting rather than answering, tough.
–your issues go far beyond this thread. “totally neutral observer”? ROFLOL My point exactly.
<snip>Now for the dan chi sao issue- so your claim is that dan chi sao was an original part of the art from the Weng Chun Tong of the 1600s which was lost in all other lines besides HFY, and re-invented by Yip Man in Hong Kong in the 1950s? What’s the choreography of your basic dan chi sao patterns?
Yip man re invented dan Chi sao ? because it is not any where else in WCK? What technical information supports this claim? what historical account brought about the need to invent this platform? LOL! Well Andrew HFY has the Sup ming dim to suport the developement of the Dan Chi sao platform. This concept is only found in HFY. This is where focussed time and space are realized. Of course this is to broad for you. Andrew your argument runs the same course as having an argument with native Americans about who discovered America. It all depends on where you set. It is impolite of you to behave the way you do when the answer is not Christopher Columbus or Amerigo Vesputse. I don’t think native Americans would bring you a european book or popular publication of history to satisfy you. But chances are they would have a better Idea of how America was not “discovered”. No matter how much you insist that it was.
I know the answers may not fit in your confort zone. You want the answers to fit what you think you know. Don’t attack me or insult my lineage because things do not seem to fit the frame work where you have already made up your mind. I have no problem agreeing to disagree. please just present your point and reframe from the antics it relects only on you. I offer my answers in a polite and respectable manor. If my answers are not to your liking challenge them with counter information. Any thing else is beneath me and not worth my time.
Originally posted by teazer The impression I get is of a group of people staring at a bright light. They can share the experience, but can’t adequately describe it to others, or perhaps even to themselves.
Howdy Teazer,
Putting myself in the analogy you used, (me being a part of the group looking at the bright light) I would have to reverse what you said for it to be true for me.
We can’t share the experience because that is a physical interaction. It is because of that fact that what we say to the ones that have not experienced what we have, may sound vague. However, the parties that have shared in the experience (whatever the experience is) can relate to what is being said.
Yuen Fan is at an impass with the HFY family. He refuses (or feels no inclination) to want to understand the HFY language, and because of this he feels justified in his claims of marketing. That’s fine. But think of it this way: One cannot learn to speak Chinese via a forum. One has to hear the tones of sound AND THEN what is being read or even heard can be understood. HFY must be physically experienced through the senses of the body to understand its context. Unfortunately it may STILL come across as pure marketing to some, but we are not here to sell them something. Yuen Fan, your position is well recognized. We are not here to argue with you, although we do not agree with your position.
Andrew, you make many claims of where certain training methodologies originated from. Can you produce those documentations on this forum for us? Do you have Yip Man’s diary? Did you ask them personally? Where is your proof to support your claims? Did you ask them personally? As you have said, everything you say is from your understanding only. It is good that you clarify that in your posts, but my ignorance brings me to read your approach as if you see your personal understanding as the universal truth. Just my impression, but I give you the benefit of the doubt. Back to your and Yuen Fan’s original question; was it answered for you? This information is what was presented at the seminar.
Those who attended the seminar can see the relationship between Kiu Sao and Chi Sao, from Shaolin to the Red Boats, and from the Red Boats to today’s versions of Wing Chun.
Andrew, I am taking your use of language as offensive to the HFY family which I am a part of. Your language could very well be taken as offensive if addressed to other families as well. If you point the finger, we can certainly point one back if you like. I am now ASKING you to respect others in a manner you would like to be treated.
((Typical Chango attempt to fill the vacuum of ideas with personalism. Poor logic))
–now all that is left is for you to put your fingers in your ears and begin repeating “I’m not listening! I’m not listening”.
((Chango continues as above…absent logic and evidence))
This concept is only found in HFY.
((A concept should lend itself to communication- again what is the precious gold that no one has–if it is not pre owned vehicle sales pitch?))
But chances are they would have a better Idea of how America was not "discovered
(( The parallel imagery of HFY being like indigenous people greeting Columbus is unimaginative & mind boggling. The indigenous folks can show their early tangible pre European possession of land, corn, chile, potatoes etc etc… where is the HFY evidence except for self serving procaamations?))
etc
Any thing else is beneath me and not worth my time.
But chances are they would have a better Idea of how America was not "discovered
(( The parallel imagery of HFY being like indigenous people greeting Columbus is unimaginative & mind boggling… HFY evidence except for self serving procaamations?))
Yuanfen,
Please keep your distaste for my Sibok off this forum. This forum is for information, not gossip. There are personal e-mail services for your interest in this field.
To answer your question, the proof is the system. Please forgive my directness, but to humor your marketing claim: try it before you bite it. If you don’t want to try it, please don’t bite it.
andrew said:
At least a brief discussion of the reason and evidence that Jeung Ngh is the same person as Taan Sao Ngh is crucial to the whole history. The lineage presented from 1800 to 1970 seems to involve about 4 people before reaching Garrett Gee, which seems odd.
Hi Andrew,
Master Gee is the 8th generation disciple of the HFY system. You are correct on there being people before his introduction to the system. He did not create it, nor does he call it “his” art (referencing previous posts/threads) as others have claimed. I hope this clarifies your query?
–Yuanfen,
Please keep your distaste for my Sibok off this forum. This forum is for information, not gossip. There are personal e-mail services for your interest in this field.–Savi
**It’s been a while since Yuenfen’s been the object of competing affections. People already know that much about him…, but let himself enjoy the attention.
Originally posted by Sandman2[Wing Chun] Ok, everybody calm down. Let’s try and keep the personal comments and finger pointing to a minimum. If it occurs any more, this thread will be closed.
Savi- I responded and generally respond to what people say. Ergo, no distaste for Chango( dont know the person), you or the HFY chorus.
I think it is reasonable to point out when statements are vague but may be meaningful for a True Believer.
What old or new places would you visit? Is Sifu Richard’s school far away from Yuanfen’s house?
Savi wrote>
To answer your question, the proof is the system. Please forgive my directness, but to humor your marketing claim: try it before you bite it. If you don’t want to try it, please don’t bite it.
Wasn’t there an open invite offered to Yuanfen to visit Sifu Lowenhagen’s school on this forum about 1-2 months ago???, I thought HungKaiVun paid a visit and was quite impressed???.
Yuanfen/Joy did you ever take them up on the offer?,if not, “WHY”
if you did what was you’re experiance??
Yuenfan, If you answered every vague post on this forum you would not have time enough to practice your WCK. When given the opportunity to visit the HFY kwoon you took a pass when given the opportunity to vist a HFY workshop you took a pass. However, you never pass on the opportunity to propagate your personal opinion on a HFY thread. If you practice wck please accept this as an invitation to have all you questions answered first hand at a HFY kwoon near you otherwise may I suggest you stop worrying about all the so called vague post they could ultimately cost you valuable time away from your kwoon.
When given the opportunity to visit the HFY kwoon you took a pass when given the opportunity to vist a HFY workshop you took a pass. However, you never pass on the opportunity to propagate your personal opinion on a HFY thread.
So he was offered a piece of the pie, turned it down, and then talked about how bad it tasted:confused:
geezer, savi, canglong, chango and several others from hfy army on the list…
quite a solid and understandable phalanx of HFY “truths” and party doctrines. Generally on the list most posters are far more
individualistic except for a couple of notorious examples.
Basically, for me—the introduction to a subject must be important enough in the first place. The public discussions of HFY have fallen short of that mark. I have tried to deal with what is presented…
Chan doctrine, “science”, history, etc… they have been assertions of “ideology” -not much else. If you enjoy your art, I have no problem with that. But if you assert that wing chun people lack “truths”- it merits comments not visits because this is very diverse list. I actually do visit when interested and and invite visitors when I choose to.
