Workshop announcement

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Wing Chun
101

Hey Levi,

I’ve been trying to ask the dan chi sao question for the last 3 or 4 pages of this thread. What I’ve picked out seems to be that ‘it was there all the time’, with no explanation for it’s absence in other lines. Ok, it’s an unanswered question. There are a lot of unanswered questions on the table.

As far as why I’m teeing of on Chango- I have little patience for bullsht artists. Either you know something, you don’t know it, or you have this educated guess based on this information. People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsht artists and I don’t suffer them lightly. I’ve seen that sort of behavior kill people before and hence despise it.

Later,

Andrew

102

Not Simple, Not Wing Chun

Originally posted by Savi

Each of the concepts intricate to HFY whom Chango stated are not simple.

Simplicity, though, is characteristic of Wing Chun.
[B]

Keep in mind that just this single question on the origin of HFY Chi Sao has gone this far on this thread. Each concept whom Chango noted are far to complicated to address unless ALL of us have gone through the Hauh Chun Saan Sao method. Mere visualization from words will not suffice to justice to both parties. The physical experience is just as crucial.
[/B]

How can you function at all thinking the art is so full of complexity?
How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets?
[B]

Without it it will be garbled jargon.
[/B]

With or without, apparently.

Regards,

103

Re: Not Simple, Not Wing Chun

Originally posted by Grendel
[B]
Simplicity, though, is characteristic of Wing Chun.
[B]
How can you function at all thinking the art is so full of complexity?
How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets?
[B]
With or without, apparently.

Regards, [/B]

So Grendel fully understands HFYWCK. Please enlighten us as to how the most foundational and universal equations of life became so simple? Use of concepts and principles may sound simple, may in application be simple, but these things are NOT born from simple understanding.

I also never claimed there were any secrets. Feel free to prove me wrong. :slight_smile:

WC did not come from simple minded people.

-Savi.

104

passing through and response:

Ah, now you want to learn HFY? Are HFY students your Sifu? You’re funny, Joy.

((1. Not really 2. not really 3. Mirth is not a bad quality in life- if not harmful- and forum discussions are not generally harmful
and my intent is curious but benign))

The mindset of trying to hit without regard to self-protection is alien to HFY

((( Alien to lots of folks besides HFY- which per the statement above by Jeremy, seems to be reinventing the wheel=repackaging the known))
------------------------------------------------------------------In your statement above, you’re referring to your opponent’s forearm entering the area of your forearm. In the Chi Sau timeframe, you’re right – you had best turn the situation around immediately!

((Surely))

However, this has nothing to do with Kiu Sau from the HFY perspective. If you enter my space and I break your structure with Kiu Sau, there is no need for Chi Sau.

((Again, seem to be reinventing the wheel. So what is new.
Just learning that hitting without being hit is a good idea?
What remains is the bridge structure and in WC families their are some differences in the details of structures. The details of HFY structure is likely to have its unique qualities(on centerline issues for instance.))

((Jeremy-Cheers! you have been more specific than the others!-HFY per your points sounds like a re-packaging of ideas scattered in wc and southern arts- despite the “in” language
involved !. The fog clears .Happy Days are Here again))

105

my honest and open answer

AndrewS, Here’s my answer based on my experience…

I study HFY and Yip Man Wing Chun. Both use Daan Chi Sau. I have no direct, real experience in any other lineage of WC except Chi Sim (said experience is VERY limited), so I don’t know why they do or do not have Daan Chi Sau. As for Chi Sim, we have already covered that. I wasn’t there when the training tools were invented/eliminated/rediscovered (if at all), and as I said earlier, I’m not fluent in Chinese, so I can offer no information other than that above that comes from anyone or anything other than my direct physical exposure to said training tool. I do not presume to speak for ANY branch of ANY art, so I am certainly not the person to ask about any other lineages if you want an “official” answer. I can’t explain it’s potential absence in other lines because I don’t study those lines directly. Anything I offer would be hearsay.

QUOTE:As far as why I’m teeing of on Chango- I have little patience for bullsh*t artists. Either you know something, you don’t know it, or you have this educated guess based on this information.

Is it possible that your assertion concerning my Sibok Chango’s artistry is simply your “educated guess based on this information” (said information being the discussions on this forum)? Is it remotely possible that because you (presumably) did not train under Yip Man, Jee Sim Sim Si, Yuen Kay San, Cheung Ng, or Ng Mui (to include all possibilities), that any information you offered earlier on branches of WC other than your own are also “educated guess based on this information?” If this is the case, then would it be possible that you were guilty of the same crime (stating an educated guess as if it were a fact, repeating what someone else has told you without having directly been exposed to the experience yoursefl) that you are accusing my Sibok Chango of? Since “People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists,” and in your earlier post you simply restated what others have told you (which, without direct experience would be nothing more than an “educated guess based on this information”), would that not put you into the same catagory?

Just in case anyone thinks I have an ulterior motive, I’ll be clear. I do: We are all in the same position here unless we are Grandmasters, and from a technical, sematic perspective, any accusastions we make about the legitimacy of anyone else’s knowledge can be applied directly to ourselves as well. Can we drop the jockeying for position and get back to WC discussion? I don’t mean this to be rude (but sometimes honesty is viewed as such), but I am WAAAAAAY more interested in your personal views on Kung Fu and your lineage and your personal insights into the art than what you think of me, or my Sibok Chango, or the Pope, or President Bush. There are probably forums for that elsewhere. There’s a saying I really like, and maybe we could all benefit from it. “What someone else thinks of me is really none of my business.” Maybe if we realize that we’re all in the same boat here (no pun intended), we can drop the bickering and actually turn it into discussion.

So on a final note (and please let me know if I have misinterpreted you), you think my Sibok Chango is BS-ing. OK. Everybody knows that. It’s crystal clear. I doubt actually saying it has changed anything. I doubt either of you are fundamentally changed, or are going to lose any sleep over it. Can we move on now. Please?

-Levi

106

quote:

Originally posted by Grendel

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets?

I can’t, because we’re not talking about the Yip Man System. We’re talking about HFY. Although I don’t recall anyone saying there was “secret Yip Man” stuff in this thread. Another unanswerable question because of the context in which you expect an answer.

-Levi

107

I think we are experiencing “why” Hauh Chun Saan Sao !

As I reread this thread I see why it is clear “Hauh chun saan sao” must be used to pass this precise knowlege. this method requires direct face to face interaction between the two parties. I understand the frustration of those interested. I have excepted the fact that this information cannot be passed on in this format. I know some refuse to face that. Some choose to blame the system some blame the people sharing the information. Blame only points to suffering on the part of those doing the blaming. Some insist that this information can be passed via the internet and even more so a forum designed for short post. I very much disagree. however I have no issues with those that continue to attempt this. It is not appropriate to take it personal when I do not use the language familiar to the person attempting such a task. I feel even less inclined to help those that attack me for offering information. It is almost hilariarious that one would accuse me of not knowing what I’m talking about becuase they do not understand I refuse to use terms less accurate to the subject at hand. I say to them do the home work! Anyone who has had face to face interaction with myself will attest to my genuine willingness to forward understanding. I do not take it personal I realize it takes patients on both sides. I do not feel the need to lash out if I’m uncertian. I cannot expect everyone to do the same. I can only offer compassion to those that feel the need to do so. Some have alot of emotion attachted to these threads. If the answer is not to your liking then please reword it or make clear where the misunderstanding could be. Again this all could be eliminated by just attending a HFY workshop or visiting the HFY Kwoon in Safrancisco or the VTM at any of the locations. I think it will be clear that we are very open a willing to share.

Chango (saat geng sau) :smiley:

108

Re: I think we are experiencing “why” Hauh Chun Saan Sao !

Originally posted by Chango
Again this all could be eliminated by just attending a HFY workshop or visiting the HFY Kwoon in Safrancisco or the VTM at any of the locations. I think it will be clear that we are very open a willing to share.

If I were to pay a cordial visit to the HFY Kwoon in San Francisco, what would I be shown—could I see your sets? Would I be able to participate in chi sao, or at least watch an advanced class. Would someone help me in my understanding of how and why HFY considers itself different from other branches of Wing Chun?

I’m willing to take you up on this offer if you believe this will result in my gaining an understanding which I could take away.

Regards,

109

paying a visit.

Hello Grendel,

I think a visit would not be a bad idea. I can not guess what subject matter will be covered and what classes you would be able to attend or the level of participate in such classes. I would first say that you should give them a call a discuss what you are interested in and make sure someone is at the kwoon to help you. You will find that you will gain a much better prespective of exactly what HFY is.

Chango (saat geng sau) :smiley:

110

Re: my honest and open answer

Hi Levi,

-QUOTE:As far as why I’m teeing of on Chango- I have little patience for bullsh*t artists. Either you know something, you don’t know it, or you have this educated guess based on this information.

-Is it possible that your assertion concerning my Sibok Chango’s artistry is simply your “educated guess based on this information” (said information being the discussions on this forum)?

Yup. My educated guess. I’m a critical care MD, I deal in uncertainty and educated guesses for a living. Often I have to base my decisions on the information others provide me. If I spend half the time getting half as much runaround from someone when I ask them a question as I have with Chango, I put the information I get from them in the ‘highly questionable’ category. The reason I do that is very simply because listening to those folks gets people dead more often in my experience.

  • Is it remotely possible that because you (presumably) did not train under Yip Man, Jee Sim Sim Si, Yuen Kay San, Cheung Ng, or Ng Mui (to include all possibilities), that any information you offered earlier on branches of WC other than your own are also “educated guess based on this information?” If this is the case, then would it be possible that you were guilty of the same crime (stating an educated guess as if it were a fact, repeating what someone else has told you without having directly been exposed to the experience yoursefl) that you are accusing my Sibok Chango of?

No, I listed the sources for my information and have, in fact, presented no guesses about HFY. I pointed out that while Bloodgod was being abrasive, he raised some real and significant questions about HFY which are still unanswered in this thread. Perhaps no one here has the expertise to answer those questions, perhaps no one has thought about them. The immediate reaction to questioning was evasion and obfuscation.

-Since “People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists,” and in your earlier post you simply restated what others have told you (which, without direct experience would be nothing more than an “educated guess based on this information”), would that not put you into the same catagory?

No. I stated what I thought and why. No more, no less, no bullsh*t.

-Just in case anyone thinks I have an ulterior motive, I’ll be clear. I do: We are all in the same position here unless we are Grandmasters,

Speaking as a WT guy, I don’t buy someone’s history just because they’re a ‘Grandmaster’. Leung Ting’s ‘Roots and Branches’ is a good collection of information on Wing Tsun, but I certainly don’t take his statements within it, editorial decisions, or conclusions as absolute truth or untainted by ulterior motive. I don’t consider that to be behavior unique to him.

If you’re ever of a mind, spend a few years following the taiji lineage wars. Those folks have much better records than we do, and better and more varied academic attempts at writing a history. Despite all this, there are some people who still claim (based on a committee meeting decades ago) that the root style of taiji, Chen, is actually a separate art and not that from which Yang and Wu styles evolved. Chutzpah at its worst.

>So on a final note (and please let me know if I have misinterpreted you), you think my Sibok Chango is BS-ing. OK. Everybody knows that. It’s crystal clear. I doubt actually saying it has changed anything. I doubt either of you are fundamentally changed, or are going to lose any sleep over it. Can we move on now. Please?

I think we’re headed in that direction.

Later,

Andrew

111

in that case…

[[ Again, my comments are in brackets. ]]

Yup. My educated guess. I’m a critical care MD

[[ I would imagine an extremely stressful yet rewarding profession, but still just an educated guess, just like anyone’s. ]]

  • Is it remotely possible that because you (presumably) did not train under Yip Man, Jee Sim Sim Si, Yuen Kay San, Cheung Ng, or Ng Mui (to include all possibilities), that any information you offered earlier on branches of WC other than your own are also “educated guess based on this information?” If this is the case, then would it be possible that you were guilty of the same crime (stating an educated guess as if it were a fact, repeating what someone else has told you without having directly been exposed to the experience yoursefl) that you are accusing my Sibok Chango of?

No, I listed the sources for my information and have, in fact, presented no guesses about HFY.

[[ I did not imply that you had made guesses about HFY. I simply pointed out that you are restating what other people have said, just like many others have done. No better, no worse. Just trying to find an equal footing and drop the jockeying for position. FWIW, the following link (http://home.vtmuseum.org/information/committee/index.php) lists the current members or contributors to the VT Museum. Any information has either come directly from one of those members or was researched/discovered/whatever by said member. Is that a sufficient citing of sources (please do not take what I say as abrasive, I only ask because the sources you gave were in the same vein - names - and both yours and mine can be contacted)? If it is not sufficient, I am sure the Museum would be happy to try to accomdate your inquiries. I’m trying my best to get resolution to things so we can step past them. If I can’t answer directly, I can only point you to resources beyond my ability. ]]

I pointed out that while Bloodgod was being abrasive, he raised some real and significant questions about HFY which are still unanswered in this thread.

[[ I was unfortunate enough to log on after his post was removed, so I don’t know what those questions were. I can only accept second hand information from others who saw it. ]]

-Since “People who fail to answer questions in that paradigm I view as liars and bullsh*t artists,” and in your earlier post you simply restated what others have told you (which, without direct experience would be nothing more than an “educated guess based on this information”), would that not put you into the same catagory?

No. I stated what I thought and why. No more, no less, no bullsh*t.

[[ Then can we agree that whenever anyone posts, that’s what they are doing as well? Anything anyone says is just what they think, and is not representative of anything in it’s entirety, and, as such, is not BS. You have set the precedence: are we permitted to play by the same rules? ]]

Speaking as a WT guy, I don’t buy someone’s history just because they’re a ‘Grandmaster’. Leung Ting’s ‘Roots and Branches’ is a good collection of information on Wing Tsun, but I certainly don’t take his statements within it, editorial decisions, or conclusions as absolute truth or untainted by ulterior motive. I don’t consider that to be behavior unique to him.

[[ Point taken. I admit that on this you have changed my mind. I should have said that only those who have finished a system are qualified (or POTENTIALLY QUALIFIED) to speak intellegently on the entire system. Admittedly, History could definately be separarted from system knowldege. ]]

[[ Thanks for the productive discourse. I agree that we finally seem to be heading in that direction. I only ask clarifying questions to head off misconceptions. ]]

112

FOR ONLY $19.95 I will reveal all the secrets!This subject is wearing thin.

113

Originally posted by taltos
[B]quote:

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets?

I can’t, because we’re not talking about the Yip Man System. We’re talking about HFY. Although I don’t recall anyone saying there was “secret Yip Man” stuff in this thread. Another unanswerable question because of the context in which you expect an answer.

[/B]

Levi,

I thought you were talking about Wing Chun. Once again, you HFY cultists have failed to meet the challenge of giving a direct answer to questions.

Apparently you are all only interested in attention, but haven’t got the goods to share.

If you don’t care to stick to the subject of Wing Chun, why not take your drivel somewhere else? (BTW, don’t bother obfuscating—that’s only a rhetorical question.)

With all due respect,

114

The second line in the first post of this thread was “Hung Fa Yi Sixth Public Workshop.” That means that the thread is about HFY.

The first question asked after the seminar was “How was the HFY workshop in Ohio?” That means the thread is STILL about HFY.

AndrewS’ original question was “what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao.” The thread is STILL about HFY.

etc. etc. etc.

But I’ll go ahead and answer your question…

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets?

There is nothing to reconcile because, again, no one ever claimed that there were Yip Man secrets. If you want to know about WC, ask about WC. If you want to know about HFY, ask about HFY. By asking about “the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students,” you are asking me about what Yip Man gave his first generation students. That’s not WC, that’s Yip Man’s WC. Just like what Yuen Kay San gave his first generation is YKS WC. If you ask a specific question, you get a specific answer. I thought I was “sticking to the subject,” since the subject of the thread was a HFY workshop and the subject of your question was “the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students.”

I’ll rephase the question…

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets {IN WING CHUN ANYWHERE, INCLUSIVE OF ALL LINEAGES}?

My answer…

I honestly don’t see that there is anything to reconcile. That’s what they were taught, and that’s what their experiences re-iterated to them. I don’t know what their life’s experiences have given them, so I won’t presume to speak for them. Again, no matter how many times I state that I SPEAK FOR ME AND NO ONE ELSE, any answer I give is automatically “the HFY answer.” How many times do I have to say I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT ME. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANYONE BUT ME. When Chadhuri Sifu mentioned earlier that he only speaks for himself, everyone seemed to be able to accept that. (And Chadhuri Sifu, I apologize in advance for potentially bringing your name into this. I am illustrating a point, but it is certainly possible that my words are going to be garbled into me somehow speaking for you or claiming that you somehow are in league with me. WHICH I AM NOT DOING.) Yet when I speak for myself, I am automatically speaking for all HFY practicioners, everywhere. Since WC is just WC, and we are just talking about WC, why am I not speaking for all WC people everywhere? Since I also study Yip Man WC, why am I not speaking for all Yip Man WC people everywhere? Since my Yip Man lineage is through the Moy Yat family, why not Moy Yat WC people everywhere? Or any combination therein? Why the distinction here? I didn’t claim it, so why decide it?

I’m sorry that “I can’t” is not direct enough. I always though that it didn’t get any more direct than “yes” or “no.” I am also sorry if you feel that I am somehow representative of a “cultist” in any capacity. I again invite the court of public opinion to let me know if I am behaving in the close-minded, I’m-never-wrong, incapable-of-admitting-error manner that generally characterizes “cultists.” Just like you thought that a thread about an HFY workshop was somehow about all of WC, I thought a question that referenced the exppierences of Yip Man WC would be about Yip Man WC. There. We both made errors and did not understand what the other was after. I am not so full of righteousness that I cannot admit my share of culpability in a miscommunication. I do not presume to speak for you, so we’ll leave your response where it should be: in your hands.

-Levi

115

Property of HFY (c)

Hi Levi,

Originally posted by taltos
The second line in the first post of this thread was “Hung Fa Yi Sixth Public Workshop.” That means that the thread is about HFY.

Let me remind you that this is the Wing Chun forum. Isn’t it your contention that HFY is some form of Wing Chun Kuen Kung Fu? I’ll assume a “yes.”
[B]

The first question asked after the seminar was “How was the HFY workshop in Ohio?” That means the thread is STILL about HFY.
[/B]

Passing Through posted the original thread 10-09-2002 11:24 AM. The workshop was held Nov. 1 - 3. The thread wound through many topics, mostly involving the inability of the HFY seminar attendees to describe in a credible way what transpired at the seminar. Since the thread started off with Rene’s allusions to Wolverine comix, I hardly think that I went off track at all. :smiley:
[B]

AndrewS’ original question was “what is the 'clear origin of HFY chi sao.” The thread is STILL about HFY.
[/B]

And we’re still waiting to hear the clear answers to that and inumerable other questions.

 It's about time, 
 it's about space,
 It's about the dawn of the human race....

[B]

etc. etc. etc.
[/B]

Indeed.
[B]

But I’ll go ahead and answer your question…
[/B]

This will be a first.
[B]

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets?

There is nothing to reconcile because, again, no one ever claimed that there were Yip Man secrets. If you want to know about WC, ask about WC.
[/B]

I thought I had. See above.
[B]

If you want to know about HFY, ask about HFY. By asking about “the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students,” you are asking me about what Yip Man gave his first generation students. That’s not WC, that’s Yip Man’s WC. Just like what Yuen Kay San gave his first generation is YKS WC. If you ask a specific question, you get a specific answer. I thought I was “sticking to the subject,” since the subject of the thread was a HFY workshop and the subject of your question was “the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students.”
[/B]

My question related to the claim that HFY had some secrets that only they shared. You can claim it, but you can’t explain it apparently.
[B]

I’ll rephase the question…

How do you reconcile the fact that the Wing Chun greats of Yip Man’s first generation students say there are no secrets {IN WING CHUN ANYWHERE, INCLUSIVE OF ALL LINEAGES}?

My answer…

I honestly don’t see that there is anything to reconcile. That’s what they were taught, and that’s what their experiences re-iterated to them. I don’t know what their life’s experiences have given them, so I won’t presume to speak for them. Again, no matter how many times I state that I SPEAK FOR ME AND NO ONE ELSE, any answer I give is automatically “the HFY answer.” How many times do I have to say I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ANYONE BUT ME. I DO NOT REPRESENT ANYONE BUT ME.
[/B]

That’s fine to say, but throughout this thread and the forum in general, your HFY brethern jump in and out of conversations. I wasn’t addressing only you when I asked my questions.
[B]

When Chadhuri Sifu mentioned earlier that he only speaks for himself, everyone seemed to be able to accept that. (And Chadhuri Sifu, I apologize in advance for potentially bringing your name into this. I am illustrating a point, but it is certainly possible that my words are going to be garbled into me somehow speaking for you or claiming that you somehow are in league with me. WHICH I AM NOT DOING.)
[/B]
Joy Chaudhuri speaks for himself. You speak for yourself. I speak for myself. I get it. Everyone gets it, okay? Just the same, Joy, Andrew S, PlanetWC, and others have asked very patient and excrutiatingly detailed questions relating to analyzing the claims of the HFY posts. Start 'splaining, Lucy, or give up convincing anyone that you’re not a group of self-deceiving brain-washed cultists.
[B]

Yet when I speak for myself, I am automatically speaking for all HFY practicioners, everywhere. Since WC is just WC, and we are just talking about WC, why am I not speaking for all WC people everywhere? Since I also study Yip Man WC, why am I not speaking for all Yip Man WC people everywhere? Since my Yip Man lineage is through the Moy Yat family, why not Moy Yat WC people everywhere? Or any combination therein? Why the distinction here? I didn’t claim it, so why decide it?
[/B]
Sorry. I don’t mean to appear dense, but are you being sarcastic? I can’t tell.
[B]

I’m sorry that “I can’t” is not direct enough. I always though that it didn’t get any more direct than “yes” or “no.” I am also sorry if you feel that I am somehow representative of a “cultist” in any capacity. I again invite the court of public opinion to let me know if I am behaving in the close-minded, I’m-never-wrong, incapable-of-admitting-error manner that generally characterizes “cultists.”
[/B]

I think the jury is in on that point.
[B]

Just like you thought that a thread about an HFY workshop was somehow about all of WC,
[/B]

The thread is a month old. It’s fine if you want to rehash all the questions which left the questioners unsatisfied with the prevarication, obfuscation, and outright obstinence of the answers. Just don’t expect me, speaking for me, I guess, to sit on my hands while watching the majority of resources on the forum go into this one arguably, off-topic thread. I thought I was asking a pertinent question. You didn’t have to answer…
[B]

I thought a question that referenced the exppierences of Yip Man WC would be about Yip Man WC.
[/B]

You’re right. I haven’t been keeping my tongue to the roof of my mouth and standing on one foot while grasping my hands behind my back. No wonder I missed that this thread was solely and exclusively the property of HFY.
[B]

There. We both made errors and did not understand what the other was after. I am not so full of righteousness that I cannot admit my share of culpability in a miscommunication.
[/B]

I am usually not one to criticize someone’s communication skills, but in the case of this thread, the sinuosity of the posits have led me and others to address how you write and reason.
[B]

I do not presume to speak for you, so we’ll leave your response where it should be: in your hands.
[/B]

And it is that sentence which inspired my latest diatribe. If the time comes that someone is truthfully willing to explain HFY theory and practice, I will be all ears.

Regards,

116

HFY does not have secrets!

Hello Grendel,

I think there is a failure to comunicate. I know that you feel that those who have HFY experiences are to blaim but you may feel like you have valid reasons to be frustrated. That is ok but the cultist remarks are really uncalled for.

<snip>And it is that sentence which inspired my latest diatribe. If the time comes that someone is truthfully willing to explain HFY theory and practice, I will be all ears.

I personally do not think this is possible via a forum of this nature. I have to admit when I first heard about HFY information. I was very frustrated becuase the terms used had been very much the same and my other WCK experience was somewhat simular. However the differences had really made this system a different beast all together. You assume that we have a comon language. This is where the frustration begins. Keep in mind on every level of HFY there is a precise measurement that makes it what it is. This is a system so as we build on every small detail a precise measurement. We will find that every step we will find that we move further and further way from the common ground. So I will say yes you will find some of Yip man in HFY but you can not find HFY in Yip man only subtle simularities. Of course I can only speak from my experinces having finished the Yip man system.

<snip>My question related to the claim that HFY had some secrets that only they shared. You can claim it, but you can’t explain it apparently.

Lets not say that “HFY had some secretes” the entire system was kept under wraps as a whole so let’s not say that it is all of the other lineages plus Blank. No HFY is a system on to it’s self. Just as I said before we have the same words but not the same definition. I will try to explain. but you will see this information in the VTM article http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/jeung_ngh.php
You do not have to agree with the article’s contents to find a understanding in it’s explination of Tan sao!

So to answer your question I will use tan sao. In HFY there is only one Tan sao. we define every aspect of the art as well as tan sao with very specific criteria. To achieve Tan sau it will have to be at a exact (hieght), with a exact hand elbow to shoulder relationship (width) at a particular distance from the body (depth) and it can only accure at a precise time frame. Or you are no longer doing HFY tan sao. This is what is known as the focused state. Sure you can do your tan at different Hieght, depths, and widths, at what ever time frame you want. With some degree of affectiveness. however something will be lost in the process. So when I say tan sau I mean in the context of these variables. How do you define tan sau. what is your criteria? I hope while addressing this you see why patience is needed for this discussion and nothing is gained by insults. If I’m not clear on this please forgive me. I’m trying to make this as direct and simple as possible. Keep in mind I still do not think it is possible to deliver this information via this format. but I’m willing to help any one who is willing to try.

Chango (saat geng sau)

:smiley:

117

Hi Chango,

I have a question. How do you determine what the correct height, width, depth, and time is? I assume these variables will be different for each person since body types differ, but how do you determine what is optimal for each person? Someone mentioned the six gates. Are the optimal values of these variables determined by the spatial coordinates of these six gates? How? (for instance, 45 degrees from the center of gate 1, x=1 foream length, y = 1/2 upper arm length, z = 1 fist distance) Or is it something else?

What about timing? How is optimal timing determined?

I am genuinely curious about this. A friend of mine recently asked about how one determines the optimum. It would be interesting to see how HFY determines this.

Regards,
Zhuge Liang

118

Great question I will give it a shot.

Zhuge Liang,
Thank you for a breathe fresh air sort a speak. Your question is valid and I will direct you to article on the punch for further clearity.

http://home.vtmuseum.org/articles/meng/wingchunpunch.php

I will clip your post to make sure I address all of your questions.

<snip>I have a question. How do you determine what the correct height, width, depth, and time is? I assume these variables will be different for each person since body types differ, but how do you determine what is optimal for each person? Someone mentioned the six gates. Are the optimal values of these variables determined by the spatial coordinates of these six gates? How? (for instance, 45 degrees from the center of gate 1, x=1 foream length, y = 1/2 upper arm length, z = 1 fist distance) Or is it something else?

Yes each person will differ on from another. But all of us being human we all can find our own optimal stucture from our own body measurements. keep in mind we are semetricle beings and the size of our body parts are in proportion to each other. So with this in mind our reference point I cannot use a approach using 45 degree or 4" and so on. As a example when I say put your right palm on your shoulder (which is not a HFY thing) I can say that your elbow will be in the middle of your chest from a horizontal point of view. This is true for humans 350 years ago and true for humans in Asia, Africa, UK, The Americas etc… so at this point we find the constant for human space. there are challenges on every level of HFY to prove one’s proper space and time!

<snip>What about timing? How is optimal timing determined?

time is not the same as timing in the HFY discussion. This is a real challege to even begin with out some type of face to face experience. However I think I can use a example I us in many classes. What is better a boot knife or a hand grenade? Well most people say a hand grenade. the I say are you sure? I mean we are standing in a phone booth! As we understand more about focussed time and space it is as easy to see as the grenade versus the knife in a phone both. In the focussed state you reduce the possiblity of self destruction. So with this in mind and we understand how positions such as range,body positions relivant to the other person have a direct effect on the proper time of a technique. the proper time for a particular technique to get the maximum effect with the least amount of energy used (maximum efficency) is only a blink of the eye. this will express the precise nature we must have in regards to time. Again HFY provides precise challenges and references to make us aware of the proper time. This I cannot be begin to put in the written form. I don’t think it is possible. I hope this helps you understand what is meant. Please check the punch article out if anything else you will also see the consitancy through out the system.I hope this post helps.

Chango (saat geng sau)
:cool:

119

Of course I can only speak from my experinces having finished the Yip man system. (Chango)

The above statement speaks volumes on comparative ignorance combined with arrogance.(Yuanfen)

Lets not say that “HFY had some secretes” the entire system was kept under wraps as a whole so let’s not say that it is all of the other lineages plus Blank. No HFY is a system on to it’s self.

The attempt to legitimize HFY’s roots by reference to Chan is spurious. Chan is diffuse enough in Chinese history the claim of a specific link is spurious.

The long running lineage claim is also spurious- there are no known major counterparts in China.

Good Chinese kung fu requires long close and regular tutoring.
The story of secret history including creation story, temple name dropping then suddenly exploding from SF to Dayton and Chandler in workshops is different from the quality control one generally associates with great kung fu.

The claims of science and related terminology is “modernist” verbiage injected backwards in time.

Taltos- this boring thread is long overdue for the garbage bin.
taltos and grendel- if memory serves our troll in residence and
sometimes friend of HFY(RH) initially stimulated the question on the workshop BEFoRe passing through and others reported on the workshop. The HFY chorus then chimed in…giving rise very naturally to a variety of questions that has been responded to
often with arrogance and sarcasm and mostly little light.

Related newbies are often impressed with athleticism, mistaking ot for skill and kung fu.

The tradition should be continued and HFY should be kept a secret.

120

no sarcasm, no BS…

Hi Grendel,

I’ll take to heart your points and I’ll look at my past postings to see where my words could have been interpreted as having sinuosity. I though that my earlier statement that “I honestly don’t feel qualified enough to offer up anything other than my interpretation at this stage in my training,” would sufficiently create the framework of my answers to avoid misunderstanding my responses, but I certainly could have been wrong. I wasn’t trying to be the expert, and I wasn’t trying to dodge any questions. I was only trying to state what I thought (from my own experience), and to point out how maybe we all could try to ask better questions and answer the questions we were presented with without unrelated tangents or personal attacks. I’m the first to admit that it’s sometimes hard to judge tone and intent from written posts, and it’s sometimes very easy to completely misread something. Point taken, I’ll refine my technique. Thank you.

It’s unfortunate that your questions aren’t being answered to your satisfaction. It seems that the line has been drawn (for whatever reason) on this thread and it’s degenerated into something that probably won’t allow friendly discourse. No blame to anyone, no pointing the finger. If anything, we’re all involved. I really do regret that the thread has reached such a state, but there’s nothing I can do about it, so I wash my hands and walk away. I look forward to the future, and I hope there’s no bad blood. We’ve treated each other courteously and respectfully before, and I hope that has not changed in your mind. Maybe down the road the original intent can be revisited and resolution can occur.

Thanks to everyone who made the thread interesting without name-calling. You gave me an example to observe. Happy posting!

-Levi