Workshop announcement

[AndrewS]

Chango,

a branch of an art emerges claiming to be the ur-Wing Chun, and the people who convert to it and start to popularize it unearth large quantities of information to support its claims, without citing primary sources, and you expect people not to look askance.

As to neutrality- I’m looking at the information I have available to me- the stuff up on the HFY websites, the various published articles, Rene and Robert’s book, Leung Ting’s book, and conversations with a variety of people. This is what any non-Chinese speaker has easily available, and is what you’ve got to produce evidence to address.

Looking purely at the data available, speaking from a viewpoint of intellectual neutrality, you aren’t making a good case; there are way too many holes in it. If you’ve got what you say you do, fill those holes, and I’ll give your lineage claims more credence.

The logical fallacies you make in your ad hominem attack on me by attempting to link my queries with western cultural imperialism are a shallow attempt to distract the onlooker from your inability to address the questions asked. They’re worthy of a politician and demonstrate the level of mental acumen at which you aim to convince.

You state that HFY doesn’t come from the Red Junks. Reading the documents up on your organization’s website, HFY had a ‘Red Boat’ period, and it seems that it’s after this period which the split occurs with the rest of Wing Chun with Tan Sao Ng as that progenitor?? of that line. Where does Chi Sim’s Wang Wah Bo fit into this?

Basically, Chango, you come off as not even having an understanding of the research your organization is trying to present, but committed to defending it at all costs. You obfuscate, make ad hominem attacks, rant, and sidetrack discussion when dealing with very simple questions rather than say ‘I don’t know’ , and all the actual information about HFY is coming from other members of your family.

Savi,

I have no problem with you or your family. Chango’s attempting to have an intellectual discussion and hurting his head. While I realize you aren’t in a position to call your senior an *ss in public (a place I’ve been), realize he’s being one.

Back to facts- Yip Man’s mainland students do not have dan chi sao- from Leung Ting, Rene- Kathy Jo has met them, perhaps she can chime in. Yip Man’s classmates do not have dan chi sao- multiple SN/YKS lines have made this statement. Gua Lo has no dan chi sao. I see no dan chi sao listed among the Chi Sim methods- particularily interesting as that art would branch at least roughly contemporarily with HFY. Is there dan chi sao in Chi Sim, and if so, where does Andreas Hoffman consider it to crop up in the art?

Where are Garrett Gee’s classmates? How does their interpretation of HFY vary from his? From where do the similarities between William Cheung’s art and HFY come? How long did Garret Gee train with his teacher? Given his background in the Fu family systems, and that shared background with Henry Leung?- the Buddha Palm Wing Chun guy on the east coast- does their Wing Chun come from a similar place? Can he support any of this?

It’s times like this when I really miss the old netwars with Sigman and the masses.

Andrew

[AndrewS]

typo

‘which you aim’ not ‘at which’

oops

Andrew

[Geezer]

This Is Funny

Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>

geezer, savi, canglong, chango and several others from hfy army on the list…

I’m actually not part of their Army as you put it;)

Yuanfen/Joy Wrote>

I actually do visit when interested and and invite visitors when I choose to.

For a man that’s completely not interested in HFY, you sure do rattle on about it.

So from now on I should take everything you say with a pinch of Salt, Me Ol China.

[Savi]

Originally posted by joy chaudhuri
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.

Mr. Chaudhury, three points:

1. the ‘introduction’ of a different family of Wing Chun to modern day is not “important enough in the first place” ? Did the HFY family knock on your door or break it down to receive such subjectivism?

2. ‘ideologies’ is all any audience will see without experiencing it. That’s as far as anyone will ever get without first-hand interaction. Do you know what a particular couch feels like before you sit on it? If you don’t, at most you will only have an idea.

3. HFY family NEVER stated that modern-day/Red Boat Wing Chun lacks truths. Those are your words. But my truth is not yours, and your truths are not mine. Different Wing Chun has truths unique to themselves. Old hat to you?

-Savi.

[Savi]

Andrew’s facts vague

Hi Andrew,

about Yip Man’s Wing Chun:
The VTM has met with 7 of the most senior students of Yip Man and all 7 have held seminars on their knowledge of Wing Chun from beginning to end, taught to them by Yip Man. That is documented. Are you more qualified to speak on the Yip Man lineage than the VTM?

about the Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun:
Your understanding does not match our documentation. Did you skim through the material, or take genuine interest in it with a clean tea cup? Just because we cite the Red Boat Period playing a role in our history does not mean that we originated from there. Before you question us, please make sure your facts are in order so we can give you an informed response.

Helpful hint: more objectivism goes a long way when doing your research.

-savi.

[_Censored]

What have I learned about HFY on this forum?

It’s about time and space.
It’s very precise and scientific, and fundamentally different than YM WC.
It is impossible to describe any of these differences, except in very vague terms, which are in fact precise, but cannot be understood without first understanding them.
HFY contains lots of circles.

Did I miss anything?

[Savi]

hOLY cRa*!?

Originally posted by [Censored]
[B]What have I learned about HFY on this forum?

It’s about time and space.
It’s very precise and scientific, and fundamentally different than YM WC.
It is impossible to describe any of these differences, except in very vague terms, which are in fact precise, but cannot be understood without first understanding them.
HFY contains lots of circles.

Did I miss anything? [/B]

You made my jaw drop! I’d only clarify your last point about circles to be more precise: Everything in HFY is connected [to everything else in HFY]; balanced.

-Savi :):)

[AndrewS]

Hi Savi,

The VT Museum has hosted seminars with senior Yip Man students, ok. Great. Post the transcripts. You’re attempting to argue from authority, another flaw in basic logic.

Either present some data or admit you’re taking Benny and Richard’s word for this.

I read the material on your website. The time line states that there was a ‘Red Boat period’ of HFY. My read of the articles was that there were members of the Chinese opera who you are asserting were also members of revolutionary secret societies who carried the art onto the Red Junks, with Taan Sao Ng being a key player in the development of the ‘public’ lines of Wing Chun.

Chango at some point in this stated that HFY did not come from the Red Junks.

Are you claiming that there were members of your line on those crafts or an independant transmission?

Objectivism- I find Objectivism very useful in many elements of my research. Unfortunately, I can’t find even the crafstmanship of a Peter Keating here, much less Howard Roark.

If you’re refering to objectivity, it requires facts. All you’re presenting is stories and assertions, soemthing obvious to objective viewing.

Again, does Chi Shim Wing Chun have dan chi sao? If so, why not?

What oral accounts, writings, pictures, etc. does the VT Museum possess that would argue against dan chi sao being a Hong Kong era Yip Man innovation? Were those seven guys asked that question?

Later,

Andrew

[AndrewS]

d*mn typos

‘If not, why’ not ‘if so, why not’.

Andrew

[taltos]

The offical Chi Sim Website of Grandmaster Andreas Hoffman is http://www.wengchun.net. I did not find any mention of Chi Sau on the site, but it is a site seemingly designed to be a historical/topical introduction to the art and it’s heritage.

On the VT Museum site at http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/chi_sim/ (which was directed and sanctioned by Grandmaster Andreas Hoffman), there is mention of the use of Kiuh Sau. Based on that information, and the information that I was exposed to through direct face-to-face interaction with Grandmaster Andreas Hoffman, Chi Sim extensively utilizes Kiuh Sau, but (THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING), they do not have a “Chi Sau” platform as either the Hung Fa Yi or Yip Man lineages would classify “Chi Sau.” As such, I believe (AGAIN, MY UNDERSTANDING) that it would be safe to assume that without a Chi Sau platform that we would recognize, they would likely not have a Daan Chi Sau platform that we would recognize. However, it is certainly possible that there is another training device that they use that to address single hand bridges. I have never heard or seen enough conclusive information to be assertative, so I can only hypothesize.

I do know that in the past. Grandmaster Hoffman has asked that his family and lineage not be embroiled in discussions that seem (AGAIN, IN MY OPINION) similar to this one. As such, I only represent what I know and understand, and I respect Grandmaster Hoffman in that I will leave it at that and not presume to represent his rich and fascinating lineage. He has shown himself to be a true scholar, gentlemean, and warrior, and as such I honor his wishes.

If I have not adequately addressed the Chi Sim Daan Chi Sau questions, perhaps the most direct route to answers would be to petition Grandmaster Hoffman or an official representative of his lineage.

-Levi

[Savi]

Originally posted by AndrewS
[B]Hi Savi,

The VT Museum has hosted seminars with senior Yip Man students, ok. Great. Post the transcripts. You’re attempting to argue from authority, another flaw in basic logic.

<Andrew, the Museum has already done the research. I encourage you to do your own research. It does require effort on your part.>

Either present some data or admit you’re taking Benny and Richard’s word for this.

<No ultimatums please.>

I read the material on your website. The time line states that there was a ‘Red Boat period’ of HFY. My read of the articles was that there were members of the Chinese opera who you are asserting were also members of revolutionary secret societies who carried the art onto the Red Junks, with Taan Sao Ng being a key player in the development of the ‘public’ lines of Wing Chun.

Chango at some point in this stated that HFY did not come from the Red Junks.

Are you claiming that there were members of your line on those crafts or an independant transmission?

<Chango is correct. HFY did NOT come from the Red Boats, but it does not mean that the HFY did not play a role in the Red Boats.>

Objectivism- I find Objectivism very useful in many elements of my research. Unfortunately, I can’t find even the crafstmanship of a Peter Keating here, much less Howard Roark.

<fact or opinion? Your response here is far from objectivism.>

If you’re refering to objectivity, it requires facts. All you’re presenting is stories and assertions, soemthing obvious to objective viewing.

<can you support YOUR accusation? Again I encourage you to do the research yourself.>

Again, does Chi Shim Wing Chun have dan chi sao? If so, why not?

<perhaps you should direct this question to the Chi Sim family if your interest is genuine.>

What oral accounts, writings, pictures, etc. does the VT Museum possess that would argue against dan chi sao being a Hong Kong era Yip Man innovation? Were those seven guys asked that question?

<You should visit the Ving Tsun Museum and experience first hand the artifacts and my family there. After all it is a museum.>

Later,

Andrew [/B]

My statements are inbetween <these>.
-Savi.

[AndrewS]

Savi,

you’re showing a profound lack of understanding of the academic method. It’s incumbent upon the party which makes a claim to support said claim, not others to disprove it.

I presented my sources for my present understanding. If Benny and Garrett want me or anyone else with anything like an academic background to accept the history they present, they’ll have to support it.

All I’m getting from you and Chango is ‘loads of research has been done. Loads. Really. A lot. So we must be right.’ That’s argument from authority and by assertion. You seem to be incapable of simply saying, ‘I don’t know and I take my sifu’s word for it’ which is a perfectly acceptable answer. Not everyone is a historian, and not every student an authority on the entirity of their art. If you do have data, facts, source, please, share them. If not your inability to say so reflects quite poorly on your organizations attempt to present itself as an academic endeavor.

Other matters- ok, simple yes or no- HFY guys on Red Boat, yes or no? You’re arguing the definition of ‘from’ with me. Get a grip.

Objectivism- you really have no clue what this is, do you? Keyword- Ayn Rand. Objectivity is the english for what you’ve been trying to say.

Accusations- I’m not making accusations. I’m raising questions. You seem profoundly unable to answer them and quite unwilling to admit your inability to do so.

Chi Shim- I thought the VTM was involved in researching all aspects of Wing Chun and had hosted Andreas Hoffman a few times. This isn’t that obscure a question- if no dan chi in the one line which seems to date from a similar time to HFY, then why?

For that matter, why is the HFY transmission over the last 200 years ‘purer’ than the others which have survived?

Later,

Andrew

[bglenn]

MY KUNG FU IS BETTER THAN YOUR KUNG FU BECAUSE ITS OLDER,NEWER,FROM FATSHAN,ETC. IS A SILLY ARGUMENT. LET IT REST!

[teazer]

Originally posted by Savi
HFY must be physically experienced through the senses of the body to understand its context…
Also, 200+ pg book on HFY history, combat, and philosophy will offer much more information which is scheduled for a 2003 release.

Well, you guys are not the first to put forth the “it has to be shown” mantra. Possibly so. Possibly you underestimate some of the readers here. No doubt in a few years we’ll find out if this way of teaching is effective with the new generation of HFY practitioners.

So, this book thing - I assume from what you’ve said that it can’t convey that much info on the practical applications of the style, but it sounds interesting. Will it be authored by the VTM in general or has anyone in particular shouldered the burden of writing it?

[Mckind13]

Hi all,

I suggest you visit. Forget all the historical/marketing stuff and go see for yourself.

If you really want to see if they are any good go challenge them to a fight.

Or go say “Hi what’s all this HFY stuff about?”

HFY is neither completely unique nor is it completely different in its use.

The terms are different, and while I am glad they like to use certain terms it does not negate the existence of these principles in the WCK of other lineages.

David

[taltos]

Let’s All Be On The Same Page

With the genuine wish that this discussion steers back to a more productive nature, we all need to be on the same page in our expectations. In that vein…

The Western Regional Branch of the Hung Fa Yi, located in AZ, has several academic and technical professionals in its midst. There are over a half a dozen engineers, several social scientists (in fields ranging from history to anthropology to communication), several teachers, and at least one biologist. These ladies and gentlemen have degrees up to and including Masters level, and at least one is nearing the defense of a Ph.D. thesis. Does this mean that they somehow have a position of authority? No. Does it mean that any of these people are “more right” than anyone else in their assertions by virtue of their degree? No. I offer this up because it illustrates that several people, from several walks of life, have been exposed to the Scientific Method, and are considered by the US Department of Education to be satisfactorily “academically sound.” It is not a claim to righteousness, but an offering of background in the spirit of openness.

From http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html, I found a very well stated introduction to the Scientific Method. Among other things, it states…

“What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.”

While I understand that we are here referring to the application of Western methods of Proof (or disproof) to Eastern Systems, this DOES seem to contradict the claim that “It’s incumbent upon the party which makes a claim to support said claim, not others to disprove it.” However, I concede that this quote was applied to the “academic method,” with which I am not familiar, rather than the Scientific Method that I am speaking to.

While the American LEGAL SYSTEM does hold that the burden of proof falls to the accuser, the Scientific Method does not. Admittedly, that does not mean that I can just state any claim I want and dare you to “disprove it.” While technically that is a justifiable position in terms of the Scientific burden of proof (or disproof), it would certainly be more “gentlemanly” to offer up what tests have been made to disprove the theory WHICH HAVE FAILED, which is an indirect illustration of a theory’s stability and strength. However, even in a gentlemanly discussion, the use of the Scientific Method in any way constitutes a two way street: One offers what cannot disprove, the other offers avenues to explore for potential disproof.

In essence, and open mid is required to limit personal bias, but some skepticism is required in order to attempt to disprove. I am not afraid of skepticism, nor am I afraid of considering differing views. If I were afraid of accepting something I had never been exposed to, I would never have tried Yip Man WC in the first place (and HFY later).

Going back to the quote “What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment.” To a HFY practitioner, this is the key to successfully understanding the system, and is the core of what we informally call “reality checks” and formally call “Hau Chun San Sao” (as discussed in earlier threads, this phrase refers to the need to understand the principles and directly experience the manifestation). I can offer to anyone the fact that I have tested a particular concept 10, 100, 1000, or 10000 times, and have yet to see the results be different. Have I engaged in testing the predictive power of a concept? Possibly (if I have kept it as controlled and objective as possible, then certainly Yes). When I tell you that I have done that, can you accept it at face value? Maybe, and maybe not. If you know and trust the integrity of the person who told you, then yes. If you do not, then it is neither disrespectful nor a diversionary tactic to invite you to see, understand, and test the predictability of the concept yourself. If anything, it is an open invitation to disprove.

I am proud of my Yip Man heritage. I am proud of my Hung Fa Yi Heritage. I do not formally study Chi Sim, but I honor and acknowledge the breadth and depth of its wisdom. I can only hope that anything I say and do reflects upon me and me alone, since I am not a Sifu in any of the aforementioned systems, and as such am neither authorized nor qualified to completely represent them. If I offer up my understanding of something, and someone chooses to accept my limited, incomplete view as the law of the system without either attempting to understand it themselves or to seek that information from a qualified person who has achieved a system-wide, complete view, I cannot stop that from happening; I can only stress that I, and any other member of this discussion group who was not formally certified as a Sifu in the Hung Fa Yi lineage cannot claim to truly, completely represent the system.

As long as we can agree to these terms, there is no reason that we cannot share our understandings of things. However, it is impossible to make headway when we expect students to be teachers, and we decide that a person’s inability to adequately express the principles of an entire system that they have not yet finished is proof that the system is invalid. Perhaps if we agree (on both sides) to treat any information offered as the understanding of a student and not the official, definitive representation of a lineage, we will keep ourselves from talking in circles and falling back into semantic and subjective arguments.

-Levi

[taltos]

Chi Sim “Chi Sau”

I apologize. I forgot to add in my earlier post about Daan Chi Sau that (as I understand) Chi Sim does not have Tan, Bong, an Fook per se, and that is why I think that they would not have a Chi Sau platform that the rest of the WC world would acknowledge (ours being based on those foundational hands).

-Levi

[planetwc]

Peer Review and communication

To Chango and the rest of the HFY family.

I think where a lot of the problem here in this discussion stems from is that you are all well versed in the Yip Man system, and can one hopes offer discourse on that system.

Additionally, you have made reference to capturing the totality of Wing Chun knowledge of 7 Yip Man system masters as an additional body of reference.

Here you have many of your Yip Man bretheren asking for a comparision to Yip Man’s system and you seem unable to provide ANY sort of comparision to it.

Why do you think that is?

Can you offer for example a description of Yip Man style Dan Chi Sao from say 2 of the 3 masters you have on record plus your own personal observations having studied Moy Yat’s interpretation via Benny Meng a certified instructor in that style?

Perhaps then someone like Tom Kagan can chime in that your description matches what he believes to be the essence of how this is taught and performed within the Moy lineage.

Then can you offer the same kind of discourse on the Hung Fa Yi Dan Chi Sao platform and principles?

If not. Why not?

In previous communication on the subject of Hung Fa Yi, several Bai Si students of this lineage have made statements regarding the science of Hung Fa Yi, etc. If those sort of statements were held up to scientific scrutiny via a peer review process after publishing such comments, you would see similar questions to those I have posted above.

These are not personal attacks, they are questions asking for details to substantiate the assertions being made from within the Hung Fa Yi community to the Wing Chun community at large.

Gentlemen, YOU are stating (not non-HFY students) that Hung Fa Yi has such a degree of rigor in it’s movements and expression and theories that it can be expressed as a literal formula, among other things.

Yet you cannot offer a comparision to something you are already grounded in (Yip Man) in terms of a comparision?

If so, then how rigorous and precise can it actually be?

Why is it that we could have the same kinds of discussion with students from the Chi Sim Weng Chun, Cho Family, Yuen Kay Shan family, Koo Lo family, etc. etc. in terms of comparitive differences, stances etc. but this discussion is seemingly impossible with Hung Fa Yi?

I understand that a book is being prepared on this topic, hopefully it will approach this in a fashion that allows a greater degree of comparision and detail.

regards,

David Williams

[yuanfen]

Taltos- Levi

I see your genuine attempt at being “open minded”.
The issue basically is that there should be a way other than “come to our workshop” for list members to discuss what they do with each other. Otherwise the forum will miss an important dimension of various wing chun folks discussing what they do.The personal remarks were by Chango and in my case by LH…you have to go back to see that. Water over the dam. You list several bachelors, masters and an abd as being mebers of your group. That is no substitute for substantial discussion between people ina martial art. With my wing chun hat alone, I have had wing chun students who have PhDs in Psych, Computer Info systems, Mechanical engineering, Environmnetal engineering…but all that is neither here or there. The key as you yourself point out —there are different degrees of understanding the subject at hand. I have had pretty good students who are landscapers, heating cooling technicians and the gainfully unemployed. Sometimes they are better than the degree slingers
in doing and explaining wing chun. I understand that there are various levels of achievement. I dont speak for any one but myself either.
So HFY folks if they chose to discuss their system on the forum should be able to explain in a common language or style of communication their understanding or what they mean by a perfect tan sao, or time space relationships that they see, or an unique relationship to Chan and other things that HFY folks have referred to in the forum.

[desertwingchun2]

Joy - The points raised earlier by my Sihing Savi were neither vague nor sloppy. Quite conversely his explanation was very clear.
In the context of which you have written, good teachers have nothing to do with “correcting” arm position. Kiu Sao and Chi Sao are two separate and distinct entities. Quite simply stated the reason you cannot follow the discussion of HFY Kiu Sao is because you have no reference from which to begin your understanding. To many wing chun people, what we consider Kiu Sao is so close in appearance to Chi Sao one cannot make the distinction between the two. It is not solely arm or hand position but principles wherein lies the difference. Kiu Sao doesn’t exist unless you recognize it and obviously you don’t, can’t or won’t.

You are correct Kiu Sao does refer to an arm bridge. Let me ask you a question - in your system does Kiu Sao training exist in Chum Kiu or anywhere else? If so, please explain where and the principles and or concepts that govern it.

The HFY family were not the only ones who enjoyed the seminar. There were representatives from various wing chun families. The Wing Chun Do family attended with appx 10 -15 students and their head instructor. Students of Robert Chu, Dak Lam and Dr. Wu were also present. David Mckinnon posted earlier with some very positive comments, he is not from the HFY family. I honestly wish you will attend the next seminar held here in Chandler. If cost is an issue I will personally pay for your admission. Possibly then you will be able to offer a first hand experience point of view. Rather than dismiss all attempts of explanations from HFY family members.

Again and again you invite open discussion of HFY principles and history. This would normally lead to respectable conversation, but history has proven that you only seek to criticize any and all attempts. So again I extend an invitation to attend the next workshop here in Chandler at no cost to you. Maybe, just maybe, you’ll gain an understanding of the discussions that you have found vague and sloppy.

-David