Honest HFY Question-

[KPM]

Alan, this goes both ways. I put it back on you - prove YOUR CSL lineage past Robert Chu... Impossible when the system is named after robert, and is admittedly made up by him. So your lineage is only what, 20 years old? And you question the authenticy of HFY's history and demand for proof of ligitimacy?? If this is the way you think, then you're as big an idiot as I might guess

(BTW, there is NO name calling here if you know how to read - if the shoe fits, wear it. if not, then idiot doesn't apply - an 'educated man' would see this)

---I'm not even part of Robert Chu's lineage and I can answer this one! Yes! Robert did "make it up." It is his interpretation of the WCK he has learned and he freely admits it! He makes no unsubstantiated historical claims. Claims no connections to Chinese secret societies, hermits in mountain temples, or teachers that no one has ever heard of or ever seen. Proving the lineage beyond Robert Chu? Easy! Hawkins Cheung lives in LA and is frequently seen on the WCK scene. He has other students teaching and is known by many people. He even has his own website! Some of Robert's other teachers....William Cheung...also well known...also has other students...also has his own website! Who in the Moy Yat family...was it Lee Moy Shan? Also well-known, also has other students, don't know about a website. Now.......Wang Ming....who knows him? Who has seen his WCK? Where are his other students? There is lots of evidence that Robert Chu's teachers exist and teach WCK. Where is that evidence that Garret Gee's teacher exists and teaches WCK? You need to do some self-reflection before calling anyone an "idiot."

[hhe]

Did you learn HFY before from Richard L. in AZ? Why did you ask him in person?

[reneritchie]

@KPM:

Don't you "Jordan Collier" me...

[Hendrik]

KPM,

IMHO


1,

There is nothing wrong to evolve to have one's own way of WCK.

It is an evolve world. Same with any living being, The art is dead if the art is not alive and evolve. That is just a reality.




The issue comes when one doesnt acknowledge the source of one art's evolution or one makes the art up and not declare clearly what it is, and intentionally or un intentionally mislead others because thier believe and mind set.


Thus,
There is nothing needs to be honest about the TRUTH imho TRUTH is always there disregard of if one is lying or honest. it is only a matter of time that things will surface naturally.


and as the title of this threat " honest... Question". Well, one could totally be honest and still it is not telling the truth because one just dont know the answer; everyone has thier version of reality.




2,

speaking about time, dimension, space, energy, awareness, face it this world is an expanding evolutional world. NO set of rule could contain it because at every instant this world is expanding.


Forget about those old chinese secret is the ultimate. Even Lao Tze alive or Damo Reincarnated today, they will have to learn how to use computer because they simply dont know how. The mind set of once upon a time some one create the best perfect system is just something blocking the progress of one. In fact, it limit one and put one's to death.


Zen is about free flow and limitless big mind and big heart. enjoy the true teaching of Zen or Shao Lin here

http://www.bigmind.org/Big%20Mind/fi...mind_page.html



Go for the limitless and be free.


Relax and enjoy life and grow and be be free it is a chinese new year next week.


peace

[anerlich]

In the first paragraph above, please note that there is one and only one sentence missing from the extract of Complete Wing Chun. In the CWC book, the last sentence of that paragraph mentions GM Gee as one of the four disciples. But here in this link, it is excluded and jumps straight to Yip Man teaching William Cheung. Misleading???

LOL at this beat up.

Jeez, I better tell Rick Spain that HFY are gunning for him and give him a stern lecture on plagiarism (though the phrase "fair use" comes to imnd, though I guess attribution would be appropriate. If anyone other than zealots with OCD GAF). (Yawn).

Savi, you're not in a position to criticize anyone else's family (is there an echo in here?) Though, really, you have little talent for it.

I though Alan and Robert weres the ones trying to stir up trouble between lineages. Now it appears it's my instructor, or whoever wrote the marketingspeak for his website.

You might note CWC is recommended at the end of the article, and anyone reading the Hung Suen (now HFY part) will find the article unedited and correctly attributed. So, while it's Robert's and Rene's right to ask us to cease and desist, we are actually giving them a plug, so, despite your efforts to sh1t-stir, I think you're bound for disappointment. Something you are used to on many levels, no doubt.

I have a question.

I didn't see a question. I saw an immature, paranoid, shadow-jumping, straw-grasping attempt to flog a horse that was, forget dead, never even born.

You sound like a ten year old telling a classmate someone told him someone else heard that their sister's friend said his mother wears army boots.

Do William Cheung and the HFY guy look alike? Can someone post pics and we run a poll?

[Liddel]

Fisrt off, thanks for the continued chat Wayfaring amoungst flairing egos, LOL

We do drills that focus on each portion (Kiu Sao, Chi Kiu) to develop the skillsets. When things are more freeform they mix in together and it is harder to separate them out.

You could see how i got confused with the info given though yeah ?
Kui Sao was said to be a longer range drill, which i can certainly relate to having my own version.
Although when it was said that Kiu Sao can at times be at a closer range than Chi Sao it was lika a spanner in the works for what i had understood Kiu Sao to be at that stage in the discussion.

Simple.

Well there are different skills necessary and different concepts that are primary depending upon range and facing. That's the whole point of why they are separated out and trained.

But common sence would dictate that when the seperate drills are put together for another 'training platform' like sparring it would go by a different name.....
stright foward misunderstanding. Ive only gotta be told once

Agreed. You can develop skills by drilling, feel, sparring. It is not necessary to understand the "whys" of things behind it. Unless you want to teach somebody else. If so, then "it feels like this" doesn't usually cut it.

This is off base, i agree with what you said here, but it doesnt relate to why i wrote my comment about not needing to know string theory or alternate dimensions. Your Kung Fu Bro alluded to another dimension which he called a 'diagonal' which lead to this......

It is true in physics there are 3 dimensions, or 4 including time (Einstein - Relativity). When you're talking MA engagements, intent can be considered a 4th dimension.

You didnt check my link to Minkowskis space did you LOL

Special Relativity calls it space/time buddy and its not universal its personal and has no connection with human emotions which is what 'intent' would fall under....

You can see how it might confuse an inquiring mind

Adding an extra dimension you call a 'diagonal' is like Einsteins "cosmological constant" which he later admitted was his biggest mistake.....

Anyway how you put it is fairly straight foward, not my cup of tea but i can understand it.
Again Danude(sp?) called this extra axis a Diagonal no mention of 'intent'....

I suppose if you don't understand something, calling it convoluted and making fun of it is one way to approach it...

I though i was quite humble and polite stating "i may have it wrong"...LOL

Its conveluted my friend, because the extra axis of a "diagonal" is a combination of two already existing axis. Depth and width.

I poked a little fun, cause its common sence dude

If you cant see that then we're very differnt in the thinking department.

Its the superfluous info that i dont perscribe to in any MA, being a VT man im into common sence and straight to the point information/theories and application.

DREW

[anerlich]

***Levi, thanks for your interest in keeping this a discussion about the two systems and not a personality/political conflict thing.

Now as for the questions raised in your post:

1) Yes, you are correct in that assumption. That's why the x-like (scissor-like) movement is done both low and then high. To signify that the east-west Central Line boundaries apply at all the heights in-between low-and-high as well.

2) No, they are always the same. As I indicated in my answer to number 1. The area most be protected, occupied, (the concept of SPACE), regardless of whether your opponent's attack is low, high, or anything in-between.

3) The east-west line extends to wherever your opponent is at any given moment. Regardless of how far away he is. But obviously the closer you are to him the more you can confine your attacks and defenses to a smaller section of the east-west parameter IN REAL TIME.

This is where the concept of TIME has a very important application. I will probably be spending most of my time operating on a smaller east-west plane at a very close distance to the opponent - because the outside path won't help him loop around me IN TIME to stop himself from getting hit or kicked.

4) As for high positions - in theory the line still exists...but again, from a very close distance I can focus on going straight in and not be too concerned about some looping overhand strike - because the opponent is too far out of his own Central Line to be able to hit me IN TIME before I hit him.

If, on the other hand, he were standing some 4 feet away or more, for example, when he tries an overhand shot that starts out looping outside of the "exact" Central line boundaries as they are defined within the TWC SLT, I would have no choice but to have to deal with it - ie.- defend against it with a high bong sao or a high bil sao, or perhaps some footwork, or whatever...since he might be INSIDE my central line parameters too quickly for me to just go forward and strike. So the concept of speed - as it relates to TIME - must be taken into account as well. My eyes must tell me in a split-second how long will it take for his outside-the-Centraline strike to make it inside and therefore be a threat.

As for below the waist: it's still the same east-west parameters but preferably (and again this will be TIME and SPACE dependent)...preferably I'm using legs against legs in attack and defense.

I wrote an earlier reply to this but it got deleted. Some minor additions to Vic's good answers:

1. Am I correct in that this left and right boundary exists at all heights (the down position is just an exercise to "draw" it)?

* pretty much, though only in as much as it has application where both combatants/weapons can touch.

2. Does the left and right boundary change at different heights?

* If it's defined as the distance where wrists cross, then this WILL vary somewhat at different heights. Good question, BTW.

3. Is there a specific distance from the body that this line exists at, or does it extend into infinity?

* In theory yes IMO, though if the combatants can't touch each other that's pretty academic.

4. Finally, are there specific lower and higher positions in which this line no longer exists (i.e. above the head, below the waist, etc.)?

* basically where you can't reach.

There is your central line and the opp's central line, Ideally you would like to fight inside yours but outside his.

[Alan Orr]

---I'm not even part of Robert Chu's lineage and I can answer this one! Yes! Robert did "make it up." It is his interpretation of the WCK he has learned and he freely admits it! He makes no unsubstantiated historical claims. Claims no connections to Chinese secret societies, hermits in mountain temples, or teachers that no one has ever heard of or ever seen. Proving the lineage beyond Robert Chu? Easy! Hawkins Cheung lives in LA and is frequently seen on the WCK scene. He has other students teaching and is known by many people. He even has his own website! Some of Robert's other teachers....William Cheung...also well known...also has other students...also has his own website! Who in the Moy Yat family...was it Lee Moy Shan? Also well-known, also has other students, don't know about a website. Now.......Wang Ming....who knows him? Who has seen his WCK? Where are his other students? There is lots of evidence that Robert Chu's teachers exist and teach WCK. Where is that evidence that Garret Gee's teacher exists and teaches WCK? You need to do some self-reflection before calling anyone an "idiot."

Thanks Keith. HFY seem to find it hard to understand that my teacher has a long background in wing chun. Maybe if I draw some pictures of my teacher and his teachers.... sorry...if I start with the bad jokes again the world may come to an end.

[Alan Orr]

Fisrt off, thanks for the continued chat Wayfaring amoungst flairing egos, LOL



You could see how i got confused with the info given though yeah ?
Kui Sao was said to be a longer range drill, which i can certainly relate to having my own version.
Although when it was said that Kiu Sao can at times be at a closer range than Chi Sao it was lika a spanner in the works for what i had understood Kiu Sao to be at that stage in the discussion.

Simple.



But common sence would dictate that when the seperate drills are put together for another 'training platform' like sparring it would go by a different name.....
stright foward misunderstanding. Ive only gotta be told once



This is off base, i agree with what you said here, but it doesnt relate to why i wrote my comment about not needing to know string theory or alternate dimensions. Your Kung Fu Bro alluded to another dimension which he called a 'diagonal' which lead to this......



You didnt check my link to Minkowskis space did you LOL

Special Relativity calls it space/time buddy and its not universal its personal and has no connection with human emotions which is what 'intent' would fall under....

You can see how it might confuse an inquiring mind

Adding an extra dimension you call a 'diagonal' is like Einsteins "cosmological constant" which he later admitted was his biggest mistake.....

Anyway how you put it is fairly straight foward, not my cup of tea but i can understand it.
Again Danude(sp?) called this extra axis a Diagonal no mention of 'intent'....



I though i was quite humble and polite stating "i may have it wrong"...LOL

Its conveluted my friend, because the extra axis of a "diagonal" is a combination of two already existing axis. Depth and width.

I poked a little fun, cause its common sence dude

If you cant see that then we're very differnt in the thinking department.

Its the superfluous info that i dont perscribe to in any MA, being a VT man im into common sence and straight to the point information/theories and application.

DREW

Hi Drew

I think you may be taking these HFY guys into areas of common sence that may cause attachment problems.

Best

Alan

[anerlich]

FWIW - And daring to return to the original topic, Gwai Ma is technically not in any of the forms in YKS/SN WCK (not in SLT, CK, BJ, HJ, etc.), it's in an extension to the second of the 12 free hands (Side Punch is extended into Kneeling Side Punch, which is also a heckuva leg workout...)

Interesting. That may help explain why it appeared, disappeared and reappeared from the TWC Bil Jee over time.

[Alan Orr]

Respectfully, If that is the case, then why even bring HFY into the discussion? Just address it to the individuals.

I am NOT meaning any ill will here, just making an observation. Engaging in tit-for-tat just accelerates the downward spiral. Sticking to the issue (and sticking to the actual people involved) keeps things on track.

I am reminded of what is trying to happen here with Parlati Sifu explaining some TWC things. By sticking to the topic, and sticking to the people involved, it has managed to limp on in spite of all this other stuff and there has actually been some good stuff as a result.

-Levi

Levi you are right and before I have done so. But everytime I post on anything HFY, the same guys start up again.

It is your our group that is making your branch look like nuts. I have a very open mind to it all. I am now more that happy to play along, its more fun.

When I get to meet the guys then we can deal with the personal issues.

best

Alan

[Alan Orr]

Hi Savi,

Long time no post. Hope all's well with you and yours.

We (neither Robert, Yewmun, nor myself), altered or edited anything in the Hung Suen chapter of Complete Wing Chun. If anyone told you we did, they are mistaken. I've had to correct this already far too many times, so I would appreciate your help in propagating the correction where ever possible.

For the other sections of the book, because the contributors weren't writers, they provided raw information (old notes, photos, charts, etc.) and we compiled it all into the structural format we were using (history, forms, training, etc.), sent it back for them to check, and the finalized it.

John Murphy provided the Hung Suen chapter already written. Unfortunately, since the first draft did not (structurally) match the rest of the book (didn't divide things up in the same sections), I took a stab at editing it, but John didn't like the idea of anyone else working on it, so Robert forwarded him some sample chapters from other branches, as well as a list of things we needed changed (too keep it more focused on WCK, and more PC), and John did the edit himself.

When John finished it up, we packaged it with the rest, and sent it to Tuttle (who, as far as I know, didn't edit anything aside from spelling and adding Leung Ting's and William Cheung's pictures to the Yip Man section since they felt it would add appeal to their large student bases).

That's why, if you look at the acknowledgements at the beginning of Complete Wing Chun, there's a list of people we thank for their contributions (like Andreas Hoffmann and Eddie Chong), but we thank Gee Sifu and John Murphy for supplying their chapter. The difference of acknowledgement was deliberate.

Thanks again for your help in clearing this up,



[edited for grammar and link]

This is the problem with Savi and with the way some of the HFY guys post on forums. They post and say whatever they think therefore it must be true. No wonder people don't buy into your ideas.

[taltos]

I wrote an earlier reply to this but it got deleted. Some minor additions to Vic's good answers:

1. Am I correct in that this left and right boundary exists at all heights (the down position is just an exercise to "draw" it)?

* pretty much, though only in as much as it has application where both combatants/weapons can touch.

2. Does the left and right boundary change at different heights?

* If it's defined as the distance where wrists cross, then this WILL vary somewhat at different heights. Good question, BTW.

3. Is there a specific distance from the body that this line exists at, or does it extend into infinity?

* In theory yes IMO, though if the combatants can't touch each other that's pretty academic.

4. Finally, are there specific lower and higher positions in which this line no longer exists (i.e. above the head, below the waist, etc.)?

* basically where you can't reach.

There is your central line and the opp's central line, Ideally you would like to fight inside yours but outside his.

Kewl. And I agree, from a sparring/fighting perspective, #3, #4, and to a certain extent #2 (if you can't reach, etc) may be more academic than functional.

#4 is something I trained in the Yip Man system in my earlier days, although without the central line. When using the ubiquitous WC wedge (the triangle formed by putting your fingertips together in front of your body), it was better if you were "pointing" at them without them "pointing" at you.

I appreciate the sharing, and the clarifications, but unfortunately it looks like this thread is becoming another fatality. I don't want this stink on me. Besides, I am getting tired of "the HFY guys" this and "the HFY guys" that when (by nature of the fact that I study HFY) I'm presumably included. I don't need that.

But thank you very much for the info. I appreciate it, and respect your willingness to share.

Be well and train well,

-Levi

[reneritchie]

@anerlich:

Since stuff like San Sik aren't, by their nature, as formal, there's a higher propensity for change and addition/subtraction. If Siu Lien Tao is a codex of alphabet and grammar, San Sik are like Scrabble tiles

So, some teachers could pick up more or less scrabble-tile, pass on more or less, emphasize more or less, combine them in different ways, etc.

Out of all the San Sik he learned from Cheung Bo and Yuen Kay-San, Sum Nung organized a very well thought out (IMHO) set of San Sik and extensions to help his early students develop fighting skill quickly, with the bonus effect of making the included San Sik easier to remember, and an argument could be made that most of the essential primitives are applied or implied in the ones he selected as much, if not as obviously, as in the three long sets, but who knows what other San Sik he may have chosen not to include? (Looking at another San Sik selection, like that of Leung Jan in Koo Lo, certainly provides some clues).

Likewise, my guess is that Gwai Ma/Gwai Choi could have been passed on to some students and not others, remembered by some and not others, kept by some and not others, taken in and out by some and not others, etc. depending on how relevant it was at the time.

That, and not all old folks may want to crank out them leg sets!

[reneritchie]

@the rest:

http://www.w1ng.com/message-board-chi-sao/