Honest HFY Question-

[Wayfaring]

@rene,

Rene Ritchie - "On ur internetz, coding ur php".

[Savi]

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 said I didn't take offense to it. Just pointing out your double standard. No one is gunning for Rick Spain. YOU, Andrew, attack the authors of MKF, yet your organization uses writings from HFY & the VTM to promote your organization. YOU are the one stirring 5HIT, not me. I'm just pointing the mirror back at your big mouth.

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.

Not at all, Andrew. You are right in that Robert and Alan are doing just that. I'm not attacking your instructor. I'm pointing out a non-HFY article that talks about "purity" and "true teachings" for the simple fact that some individuals around here seem to think that the HFY group is the only one SUPPOSEDLY p!ssing on everyone else. Some users here mudsling MKF around here, including you. I was just pointing out that the things the authors of MKF are being accused of, can be found in other areas if one chooses to really look into it.

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.

Very funny. You've been stirring 5hit for quite a long time, so I definitely give you the award for that. I'd expect any and all the personal disappointment that comes with stirring 5hit. You're a veteran pro at that, though, so kudos to you.

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.

Wow. Good one. sigh... you got me. Oh darn... With rebuttals like yours, you must be talking to yourself.

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.

I'm sure you've got plenty more of those comments from that pile of 5hit you've been stirring for how many years now. And you're calling me immature? Read your comments and see whose doing the character assassination.

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

Like I said, someone here is being hypocritical, and it's not me.

[Savi]

My sihing Levi put up this new thread at HFY108.com

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think we all can agree that the historical "explanations" of both TWC and HFY have long been disputed by many people within the rest of the wing chun world. And Robert Chu has most definitely been a vocal member on that list of people doing the disputing. Granted.

But no one on either side of this latest dispute between Robert and some of his guys (like Alan) on one side and people like Savi and some others on the HFY side should get any mistaken impressions about where I'm coming from in all of this at the present time.

I still have some very strong suspicions about where BOTH men got their respective systems that might surprise some of you.

I now have a hard time believing either man's story, quite frankly. (Although my loyalties to my instructor, William Cheung, will never change)...nonetheless, at the age of 57 - you know what?...

I want to know the truth more than anything else. If not now - when?

I can remain loyal to William Cheung and still have some views of my own about where he got the material he refers to as TWC. I've learned an enormous amount of excellent material from him - for which I shall always be grateful.

Furthermore, I can't imagine, for example, that Garrett Gee would just have the audacity to rip off William Cheung's material and call it his own - while making up an elaborate history to boot.

It would take a complete nutjob to do something like that. And from what I've seen of Garret Gee on the FRIENDSHIP seminar tape - and from what I heard about him from my long time TWC friend Delroi Flood - and from what I heard about him from my Moy Yat VT friend, Miguel Hernandez - who was at the FRIENDSHIP seminar....it just doesn't fit his MO that he would do such a thing.

And since there's evidence from eye-witnesses in Australia that William Cheung did indeed start teaching different things (ie.- TWC things) as far back as 1973 - right after Yip Man's death - it's impossible to make the case that William ripped off Garrett Gee.

WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT BOTH MEN STARTED TEACHING TWC/HFY AT ABOUT THE SAME TIME. (If we are to believe Garrett Gee's claim that he started teaching in the early 70's in San Francisco).

But this "coincidence" raises even more questions than it answers.

BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE NONE OF THIS MATTERS IF INDEED THERE ARE MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEMS.

And to date, I don't believe there are such "major" differences. (Only minor ones). But I want to find out more about this than from what I've read, seen, and heard so far (ie.- over the last 9-10 years or so that I've been aware of HFY).

So I'm open to discovery. Let's explore the two systems IN THE ONLY POSSIBLE OBJECTIVE MANNER THERE IS - by examining concepts, principles, strategies, and techniques.

Because the longer we prolong the political/ego infighting and bickering - the harder it becomes to ever discover the truth about either system.

Hence I welcome the efforts of those on this thread who want to compare and contrast the two systems IN DETAIL.

The more detail the better.

Because everything else is just politics. Enough of the politics. Let's just get to the truth.

[Ultimatewingchun]

So in the spirit of my last post - here's something for Savi:

(Here's what Savi listed in post#101 on page 7 of this thread):

Bong Laap Kiu Sau
Deui Ying Kiu Sau
Dim Buhn Kiu Sau
Faat Sau Kiu Sau
Kwan Sau Kiu Sau
Saam Sing Jong Kiu Sau

I think we've covered Bong Laap Kiu Sau pretty much - as regards the parallel within TWC bong/lop drills and concepts and how they relate to kiu sao bridging and distance issues and energy/force issues.

Now what about "Deui Ying Kiu Sau"?

So from my Moy Yat days I know that the word/phrase "Deui Ying" means "FACING" one's centerline to the opponent properly - or returning to deui ying when one has lost the proper facing, ie.- like what many wing chun systems believe Bil Jee is all about.

In TWC we simply use the English word "facing"...as in "facing the point of contact" - a phrase used often in TWC (ie.- if a hook/round punch is thrown from a distance wherein it would not be safe to just move in/forward with your centerline facing his center of mass - we would face our main centerline to the point on his arm where we would block/intercept/redirect his hook with a wing chun hand ie.- bil/lop, etc.)...that is also placed on our main centerline.

While possibly returning the fire nearly simultaneously by punching him with the non-blocking hand - usually on a different "east-west" line (ie.- face your main centerline to the point of contact you're blocking near his elbow - while punching him back by traveling along your "chest" or "shoulder" line)...an example of the Central Line principle/concept in action.

So that all of the most important SPACE between the two of you is occupied by your troops - and not his.

So Savi:

Care to give some specific details about "Deui Ying Kiu Sau" from the HFY perspective?

[Phil Redmond]

No answers to your questions, perhaps. But I wasn't trying to answer your questions. I was trying to point out something that may allow us to compartmentalize our opinions and keep from having our opinions for one organization cloud our opinions on another. Here in the US we're in an election year, so clouding the issues is all day, every day on TV, and it gets real old real fast.

I was only trying to bring an end to this "internet BS." Like you have mentioned that you and Meng Sifu tried to do. THAT was my intent, not a treatise on HFY and TWC. I have NEVER seen a single TWC form to completion, online or otherwise, have never attended a TWC seminar, read a TWC book, watched a TWC video, so I really an in NO place to even address your questions since they are HFY and TWC specific.

Sorry if my intent wasn't clear.

-Levi

The TWC forms are here: http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/empty.asp
Also, if you send me an email I can send you a clip demonstrating the 4th Center (Central line)

[canglong]

Origninally posted by Ultimatewingchun
I think we all can agree that the historical "explanations" of both TWC and HFY have long been disputed by many people within the rest of the wing chun world. And Robert Chu has most definitely been a vocal member on that list of people doing the disputing. Granted.

Victor your belief in Robert Chu is part of what keeps you blinded from the truth. It's easy to stop the BS but hard to stop after others have joined in. You think after 19 pages you get to call the shots on the direction of when and how things go its not that simple. You fail to understand the basics of being insulted. Maybe you don't understand when Robert called William Cheung "a pimp" that was not a compliment. Let me give you an analogy of how things work when working on a surface level. Several years ago while on a trip to Mexico while being served by a dark hair dark skin female waitress some small talk ensued and one of our guys asked her if she spoke Spanish. The waitress kind of caught off guard proclaimed rather forcefully she was not Mexican but Native American Indian.

To some it might be considered an honest mistake but to her it was the ultimate insult to assume she could be stereotyped as something she was not. Knowledge is power. People who only think they know something but willing to chances using only bits and pieces of information are reckless and foolish. Two quotes for you.

Originally posted by bobby_108 @HFY108.com
I think since Robert's sifu is Lee Mu Shan Robert should address Benny as Sibak his kung fu uncle. A little something that may help Robert not to run his mouth as often as he does.

Originally Posted by chusauli
I get blamed for HFY's woes, but if you look at it, I did not create HFY with all its semblances, and secret culture. Nor have I said anything about HFY today.

I personally think all WCK is good; provided you can use it with proper timing and positioning.

As for GG, I respect him as a successful martial artist. As for BM, we have hashed things out between us, life is too short for such pettiness. I fail to see what I have done here and what I am blamed for. There is no evil "Chu gang".

Several TWC practitioners have participated in our HFY workshops and to a man their experiences according to them are that the two systems are entirely different. The only reasons that Victor sounds like the broken record he is. 1. Because he doesn't have the necessary experience to distinguish those differences nor any understanding of the fact that until 1850 all wing chun came from the same source and since that time the two branches of Hung Gun Biu and Wong Wah Bo now exist together as 2 distinct lines of WC something you need to know in order to begin to identify the differences and similarities. 2. Because Victor is willing to rely on past rumors and gossip you used trying to sabotage HFY in it's early days and he is unwilling to experience HFY for himself he continues to repeat the same old bullsh!t that you started. Rumors gossip, sabotage online, in books, through articles, WCML, WCK.com, secret emails, secret phone calls and here at KFO these things have been your main stay providing you an outlet to perform your deeds for the past 20 years thats old news everyone knows it.

Talking about respect? Why did Randy Williams want to kick your @ss maybe a little something about a lack of respect between you and his Sifu. You think all wing chun is good with good timing and positioning, that must not apply to TWC which you referred to as "cheap sex". Did Robert have respect for Master Moy Yat when you said he was just in it for the money, where you showing respect to William Cheung when you referred to him as a "pimp running a wh0re house" Where was your respect and mutual exchange when you charged Benny $1,000 dollars to read information from some notes you got from who knows where. Maybe the truth is really that you are a hypocrite a phony and here online talking sh!t out of both sides of your mouth looking for respect in public that you never give to anyone else either in public or private.

Robert has no traditional training so none to pass on and that is the real reason his band of internet thugs and intellectual midgets runs around aimlessly and disrespectfully arguing about things that don't concern them or apply to his so called lineage whatever that is now. Traditionally martial artist earn respect in order to receive answers face to face and not online something Robert doesn't know so he obviously can't teach.

Calling respected martial artist and masters "grandmas" is not a sign of respect nor is it a sign that you personally think all wing chun or martial arts are good. Robert as much as you would like for people to believe you can distance yourself from the actions of your students isn't the real truth that your students are very similar to you and that is what gives them the ability to separate you from your own actions. Your students are grandmas at making excuses when questions arise about things like you and Randy Williams or you disrupting a William Cheung seminar similar to that of Alan Orr disrupting Benny's workshop several years later same old tactics different face. Then you come online showing one face trying to hide the other. Bottom line Robert you need grow the f_ck up and you need to stop saying one thing in public and then doing another in private before anyone here believes the sh!t you say will ever match the sh!t that you do which you never back up with any sign of semblance of skill, secret ability or by simply being a man.

Originally posted by Boxer1408 @hfy108.com
ALL WING CHUN came from the same source -"the similarities"


Quote:
....the necessary experience to distinguish those differences nor any understanding of the fact that until 1850 all wing chun came from the same source and since that time the two branches of Hung Gun Biu and Wong Wah Bo now exist together as 2 distinct lines of WC something you need to know in order to begin to identify the differences and similarities.

Until 1850, -"the differences"

Two branches:

1) Wong Wah Bo from Hung Suen

2) Hung Gun Biu from Hung Gun Wui


Quote:
Subj: HFY Clinic in Ohio Date: 11/18/2003

Grand Master Garrett Gee,

Thank You for the life altering experience at the last HFY Wing Chun Clinic held at The Wing Chun Museum, Master Benny Meng's Kung Fu School in Dayton Ohio. After training in the William Cheung system for over 12 years and teaching it for 4 years I now realize the details are missing in the system I was trained in. I am eternally grateful to you for showing me the light! And my next road to spiritual enlightenment through Martial Science in the HFY Wing Chun System.

Sincerely,

Sifu Dale Vits
Reply With Quote

Don't you think after 12 years of study he is capable of recognizing significant differences and real knowledge in and between the 2 systems.
Sifu Vits would not waste his time if he thought the 2 systems were the same thing under a different name.

"Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer"
Victor first you have to know who the real enemy are.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Canglong:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don't give a rat's a55 what Robert Chu may have once said about William Cheung?

Perhaps because I saw first hand what William Cheung did to Robert during a chi sao experience that Robert asked for at a seminar waaaay back in the day.

Or perhaps because Robert came to our first meeting in September, 1984 wherein myself, Phil Redmond, and Sonny Whitmore were discussing how we would conduct the TWC classes/school that William Cheung enlisted us to do - and Robert didn't do or say anything at that meeting that I found offensive...

So why would I care if he decided some years later to make some derogatory remarks about William Cheung? I know what's-what with Robert. Believe me I know.

But people change - and circumstances change. And Robert emailed me about a year or so ago out-of-the-blue and was very friendly. And his CWC book with Rene had some good information in it. Perfect? No. Was I satisfied with what was written (or not written) about William Cheung? No. But overall it was a pretty good effort at the time. And Alan and his guys are clearly talented and doing some good things of their own out on the competition circuit. Do I agree with everything Alan has said about "full body structure" wing chun? Hell no.

But so what?

Bottom line: from my persective there are more important things to do then rehash past insults and disagreements. Remember, I've always said that I LIKE what I've seen of HFY as a system. Keep that in mind.

AND RIGHT NOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT THIS HAS BECAME A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN SOMETHING MORE ABOUT ANY AND ALL POSSIBLE HFY/TWC SIMILARITIES AND CONNECTIONS.

[Alan Orr]

Canglong:

Did it ever occur to you that maybe I don't give a rat's a55 what Robert Chu may have once said about William Cheung?

Perhaps because I saw first hand what William Cheung did to Robert during a chi sao experience that Robert asked for at a seminar waaaay back in the day.

Or perhaps because Robert came to our first meeting in September, 1984 wherein myself, Phil Redmond, and Sonny Whitmore were discussing how we would conduct the TWC classes/school that William Cheung enlisted us to do - and Robert didn't do or say anything at that meeting that I found offensive...

So why would I care if he decided some years later to make some derogatory remarks about William Cheung? I know what's-what with Robert. Believe me I know.

But people change - and circumstances change. And Robert emailed me about a year or so ago out-of-the-blue and was very friendly. And his CWC book with Rene had some good information in it. Perfect? No. Was I satisfied with what was written (or not written) about William Cheung? No. But overall it was a pretty good effort at the time. And Alan and his guys are clearly talented and doing some good things of their own out on the competition circuit.

Bottom line: from my persective there are more important things to do then rehash past insults.

AND RIGHT NOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THAT THIS HAS BECAME A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN SOMETHING MORE ABOUT ANY AND ALL HFY/TWC SIMILARITIES.

Well said Victor. This is again HFY's sad way of trying to pit others against my teacher. As they can not stand up for themselves.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I understand that there's bad blood going on right now between Alan and guys like Tony and Savi....

but I'm not going to be drawn into it.

Okay...so we have two different threads going on here at the moment. The HFY/TWC comparison and the personal disputes. I can live with that.

But I would appreciate it if both sides just left me out of the personal disputes from here on in.

I'M HERE TO TALK CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES, TECHNIQUES.

And that's it.

[osprey3883]

Hi Phi,

re-

ALL fights start pre-contact. It makes since to train using both contact and pre-contact drills. Also, ALL WC that I'm famliar with use the concept of structure and forward energy.

I agree about the drilling contact and pre-contact drills. Based on the drill we are discussing though I don't believe Kiu Sau is being expressed.

Matt

[osprey3883]

CFT wrote-

Also, why have they remained in obscurity? Even Kulo/Gulao which seems to be relatively rare has more than one outside-of-China representative.

The Qing dynasty has been over for nigh-on 100 years, the Republic established in 1912. I'm sure all the fall out is over. So unless HFY-China took part in anti-Communist activity it is hard to see why they are so secretive.

There are multiple precidents for MA taught in private being exposed to the public in the last few generations. 2 examples outside of HFY being TWC and Yin Fu Bagua. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Style_Baguazhang as I understand it until Dr Xie Pieqi brought it to the public only part of the system was taught publically)

Being ignorant of TWC history, when GM Cheung brought out TWC to the public were there other TWC practitioners/representatives that were not his students that came out as well?

Matt

[Ultimatewingchun]

No. Just him. He claimed to have been the only one to learn TWC - privately from Yip Man during the time that he lived with Yip Man.

But this is ancient history by now - and has been discussed and debated numerous times over the last 25 years.

[CFT]

No. Just him. He claimed to have been the only one to learn TWC - privately from Yip Man during the time that he lived with Yip Man.

But this is ancient history by now - and has been discussed and debated numerous times over the last 25 years.

And yet the controversy continues. You can't deny that Victor, even if you don't care about this particular issue.

There are multiple precedents for MA taught in private being exposed to the public in the last few generations. 2 examples outside of HFY being TWC and Yin Fu Bagua. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_Style_Baguazhang as I understand it until Dr Xie Pieqi brought it to the public only part of the system was taught publicly)

Being ignorant of TWC history, when GM Cheung brought out TWC to the public were there other TWC practitioners/representatives that were not his students that came out as well?

Matt

Not sure if the analogy is totally applicable. I'm not questioning the validity of the HFYWCK curriculum and material. At this point, I'm interested in the history and relationships.

Is anyone questioning whether Men Baozhen taught Xie Peiqi, or whether Yin Fu taught Men Baozhen? Men Baozhen has at least 5 named "training brothers" according to the Wiki article. Gee sifu has 4 un-named sihing/dai. Can you understand my skepticism, even if you don't accept it?

[CFT]

It's funny/sad how threads develop and go off track.