Honest HFY Question-

[duende]

Originally Posted by Liddel

Ok , and i thought i was following this thread well.
So if its not range, what aspect defines the differences between Chi Sao and Kiu Sao ? If you saw a fellow HFY guy traniing how would you tell wether hes drilling Chi Sao or Kiu Sao ?
From what you've said, could i deduce that you couldnt tell by looking... only feeling, have i got that right ?



This i find interesting, Personally i flow and use the same tools and structures at long and close range, all be it for subtle differences due to space and therefore timing. The same goes for the energy usage leverage and bridge contact....curious....



No offence intended ok....but IMHO
This is exactly what makes me skeptical about SOME of HFY's approach. We're all in the same reality, (well im second guesssing that now) we need not consider string theory and multi alternate dimensions to be able to fight, nor will having in depth knowledge/awareness of it strengthen our ability to fight.

That being said i would go so far as to say...every MA takes 3D space in account, its inescapable, and its foolish to think HFY considers and extra element seperate from others....

This makes no sence to me.....perhaps its just me



Complex...No.......Convoluted..... IMHO...Yes.
Sorry, its just how i see it.

DREW

Drew,

You're really taking my answers to Angelo's questions out of context. Read his questions again. His questions seemed fixed into thinking of range in terms of depth only.

My answers were intentionally trying to broaden what I specifically thought the scope of HIS questions were... to promote further understanding. Not put other people off, seems that can't be helped here. Which is why I wonder some times why I even bother.

[duende]

Originally Posted by anerlich

Keith, that's a funny diagram but I don't think "prevailing" TWC conjecture agrees with it.



I've never heard that YM invented the dummy. Even the TWC "legends" have it developed by the 5 "original gangsters" who escaped the Temple, replacing the 108 dummies in the temple with 108 drills with a single dummy with 108 movements.

It's incumbent on anyone claiming the inside track on history that they not misrepresent what others actually said so as to make themselves look smarter than they really are.

Anerlich,

Read some more posts here...

Many people have claimed right here on KFO that YM invented the wooden dummy.

I 5hit you not! Of course it comes from the Wooden Dummy Hall in the Shaolin Temple as you say. Not to mention numerous other KF systems have wooden dummys as well.

Don't Fukin talk to me about misrepresenting what others say.. First off... I'm not doing it. Second.... it's the fukin norm here!

[duende]

Originally Posted by Ultimatewingchun

***WELL duende, since I'm doing wing chun for 33 years I'm sure I'll "know what to look for" once it's explained a little more clearly. And yes, I can "feel" it from hand-to-hand contact since I've been doing various forms of chi sao and kiu sao for over 30 years now. Shouldn't be a problem.

Yeah, well that's what is so puzzling. Seems to me then that you should know that you ain't gonna truly understand jack with all this online technical talk. That with 33 years of doing WC that you'd see the importance of hands on interaction, and have figure'd out how vital it is to have "feeling" over "talking".

[KPM]

Originally Posted by JPinAZ

I am going to ask that the moderators remove both this post and the previous one with alan's 'questions'. Questions are fine, but direct insults to several lineages as well as respected leaders/Grand Masters of the systems should not be tolerated. This type of behaviour in no way promotes ANY good will, attempt at postive discussion or anything else. And I do not feel I am over reacting. It was let go once, but repeating the same crap because it wasn't show enough attention the first time is a clear indication of Alan's bad intentions to disrept this thread and pass insults.

Jonathan

Why?! I didn't take Alan's questions as an insult to anyone! I pointed out that I have many of the same questions! I DO feel you are overreacting. With all due respect, most of the HFY guys that care to post seem to have a big chip on their shoulders. And I'm not the only one that thinks that! And if you want to talk about being insulting to other lineages and not promoting good will, just read "Mastering Kung Fu"!!!!!

In my view, HFY and TWC have the same "historical" problem. Neither can produce evidence of existence prior to GM Gee or GM Cheung. Take Yip Man ....his teacher was Chan Wah Shun. People in China knew CWS and can vouce for that. CWS had other students that people in China knew. CWS's son teaches WCK. CWS's teacher was Leung Jan. People in China knew Leung Jan. LJ had other students that are still teaching. Take Yuen Kay Shan ....other people knew his teachers, his teachers had other students, etc. But we don't find any HFY or TWC prior to Gee or Cheung.

Marketing is another problem shared by HFY and TWC. When GM Cheung first began to promote TWC he did it by saying that TWC was the "original" or "traditional" form of WCK and that all others were "modified" and therefore inferior. Surprise, surprise....that didn't go over too well and over the ensuing decades he has never been able to prove his historical claims. So that marketing strategy has been toned down somewhat in recent years and TWC has benefited from that. HFY has taken the same tack, and it isn't working for HFY any more than it did for TWC. Being secretive and evasive and not answering simple and direct questions has most definetly not helped HFY's cause. Nor has it made it seem any more "legitimate."

None of this is meant as an insult to either WCK family. Its just a statement of how things are in the WCK community.

As long as HFY remains secretive and evasive, people are going to be leary of them. As long as its members seem so defensive and talk like the "mystic zen warrior", people are going to be suspicious. If you want to be part of the greater WCK community, then you have to act like it. Refusing to respond to legitimate questions from curious "cousins" is not helping. Attacking people that have such questions is not helping.

[KPM]

Originally Posted by duende

Anerlich,

Many people have claimed right here on KFO that YM invented the wooden dummy.

Really!!!??? "Many" people?? I've been around here for a long time and I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Yip Man invented the wooden dummy. I would love to see an example of someone claiming that, if you can find it. Maybe I just missed it. But "many" people?????

[Wayfaring]

Originally Posted by Liddel

So if its not range, what aspect defines the differences between Chi Sao and Kiu Sao ? If you saw a fellow HFY guy traniing how would you tell wether hes drilling Chi Sao or Kiu Sao ?
From what you've said, could i deduce that you couldnt tell by looking... only feeling, have i got that right ?

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.

This i find interesting, Personally i flow and use the same tools and structures at long and close range, all be it for subtle differences due to space and therefore timing. The same goes for the energy usage leverage and bridge contact....curious....

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.

No offence intended ok....but IMHO
This is exactly what makes me skeptical about SOME of HFY's approach. We're all in the same reality, (well im second guesssing that now) we need not consider string theory and multi alternate dimensions to be able to fight, nor will having in depth knowledge/awareness of it strengthen our ability to fight.

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.

That being said i would go so far as to say...every MA takes 3D space in account, its inescapable, and its foolish to think HFY considers and extra element seperate from others....

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.

How does this come into play? Here's a simple example. When you are in a square stance facing your opponent, then all 3 dimensions (height,width,depth) apply simultaneously. Both people's intent (or energy as sometimes decribed) is toward your opponent's center.

When you are in a flanking position (I threw in a TWC term there) your intent is toward your opponent's center. Your opponents intent is not focused toward your center, but off to one side. This changes what is necessary in the 3 dimensions (height,width,depth) for each person to empasize.

This makes no sence to me.....perhaps its just me

Complex...No.......Convoluted..... IMHO...Yes.
Sorry, its just how i see it.

DREW

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

[JPinAZ]

Originally Posted by KPM

Why?! I didn't take Alan's questions as an insult to anyone! I pointed out that I have many of the same questions! I DO feel you are overreacting. With all due respect, most of the HFY guys that care to post seem to have a big chip on their shoulders. And I'm not the only one that thinks that! And if you want to talk about being insulting to other lineages and not promoting good will, just read "Mastering Kung Fu"!!!!!

Who really cares what you take insult too. You are not me, and I am not you. If you are not from TWC or HFY, then what Alan & his sifu say shouldn't affect you -so what is your point?
If you feel HFY people have chips on thier shouloders, that could be because 3rd parties are artificially trying to put them there so they can try to knock them off.

BTW, I've read MKF, great read IMO - thanks for the suggestion.

Originally Posted by KPM

In my view, HFY and TWC have the same "historical" problem. Neither can produce evidence of existence prior to GM Gee or GM Cheung. Take Yip Man ....his teacher was Chan Wah Shun. People in China knew CWS and can vouce for that. CWS had other students that people in China knew. CWS's son teaches WCK. CWS's teacher was Leung Jan. People in China knew Leung Jan. LJ had other students that are still teaching. Take Yuen Kay Shan ....other people knew his teachers, his teachers had other students, etc. But we don't find any HFY or TWC prior to Gee or Cheung.

Marketing is another problem shared by HFY and TWC. When GM Cheung first began to promote TWC he did it by saying that TWC was the "original" or "traditional" form of WCK and that all others were "modified" and therefore inferior. Surprise, surprise....that didn't go over too well and over the ensuing decades he has never been able to prove his historical claims. So that marketing strategy has been toned down somewhat in recent years and TWC has benefited from that. HFY has taken the same tack, and it isn't working for HFY any more than it did for TWC. Being secretive and evasive and not answering simple and direct questions has most definetly not helped HFY's cause. Nor has it made it seem any more "legitimate."

None of this is meant as an insult to either WCK family. Its just a statement of how things are in the WCK community.

As long as HFY remains secretive and evasive, people are going to be leary of them. As long as its members seem so defensive and talk like the "mystic zen warrior", people are going to be suspicious. If you want to be part of the greater WCK community, then you have to act like it. Refusing to respond to legitimate questions from curious "cousins" is not helping. Attacking people that have such questions is not helping.

As long as people are out with an agenda (in this case, trying to disrupt postivie discussion with deviceive comments, insults, etc), then HFY members will stand up for what they believe in. If you call this 'attacking' then I cannot change your mind. Nor do I care too. Everything else you wrote is just opinion, so it really has little meaning for me.

Unfortunately, my interest in discussing anything else here is gone for now. Hopefully next time we all try to 'share' in a positive manner, it won't have this same rediculous outcome because of a few detractors.

[duende]

Originally Posted by KPM

Really!!!??? "Many" people?? I've been around here for a long time and I don't recall anyone ever claiming that Yip Man invented the wooden dummy. I would love to see an example of someone claiming that, if you can find it. Maybe I just missed it. But "many" people?????

Ok then... perhaps I should not have said many people. But certainly I have heard it here on KFO more than once. Regardless, it does not change the fact that people here are complacent to only believe what they have been told. And that those who draw the most attention to themselves (or in this case... post the most) are considered experts.

Open-mindedness and even a simple benefit of the doubt every once in awhile are often left behind. Why??? Because any other understandings or insights are considered a threat to their personal knowledge-base and ego.

You say, Mastering Kung Fu was insulting. I agree that the wording could have been written in a way that was less confrontational.

But if you truly read MKF, what you have is a VTM research section, and HFY technical knowledge section. The HFY section is not insulting whatsoever. It's the VTM's current findings that people don't care for.

So if you or anyone has a problem with the VTM's findings, you should take it up with them. I'm sure they would be more then happy to explain their position with you.

Yet we are accused of over-marketing. Dammm... Most other WC lineages have several books out.... not to mention numerous DVD's and videos. Maybe you should read some of those books and dvd's before you cast judgement on our single book.


As for secrecy and being evasive??? WTF?? Look at this thread. Along with TWC, we have shared more than any other lineage. But besides that, we are studying martial arts are we not?

What makes you think you are privileged to know such details of our system?

What gives you the rights to make demands of our knowledge???

The answer is.... Nothing!

As for Alan Orr.... to repost those questions after they've not only been addressed here, but addressed directly to his Sifu???

It's no wonder why the guy doesn't want head shots allowed in Chi Sao competitions.

[Savi]

Why?! I didn't take Alan's questions as an insult to anyone! I pointed out that I have many of the same questions! I DO feel you are overreacting.

Well, you can only speak for yourself. You may not be insulted, but you are not from HFY and you don’t have Alan Orr’s reputation with the HFY family. There is a history of heated online discussion with Alan Orr and HFY members which has lead to no trust with this individual. So you have to consider those past discussions in that there are NO open discussions between Alan Orr and the HFY members. He has been informed on more than one occasion regarding his position with HFY members. He is no friend to this lineage. Consider that in addition to him trying to make a joke of HFY’s past inheritor by comparing him to a younger generation WC master. It is no far stretch to see how his so-called “questions” hold no validity to HFY.

With all due respect, most of the HFY guys that care to post seem to have a big chip on their shoulders. And I'm not the only one that thinks that!

To each their own. People cannot be controlled. Your observation also depends on what side of the fence you stand. Some members of HFY feel the need to react to things they feel slight their kung fu family, and act as they so choose. Again, they do not represent the whole of the HFY family; only themselves. Considering Alan is not in good standing with HFY, it is no wonder (many of if not all) its members have no reason to trust him. Many of his questions ARE ridiculous because:

a. he has a poor record of “questioning” the merit of the HFY system and lineage,
b. for the most part no one in HFY can speak for the TWC system (therefore no one in HFY can answer those questions),
c. most of those questions are just personal observations in question form,
d. one question in particular is a clear example of what NOT to say, in good standing or not, about anyone’s Sifu. Personalities aside, that’s like me saying ‘Hey, why does Jimmy Carter look like Stephen Harper?’ Different generations and different parties. People would take that differently (good or bad) depending on where they come from. No different here with the situation.
e. his "questions" really says that Alan Orr is calling HFY a made up, repackaged, rip off of TWC as initially rumored by his sifu Robert Chu.

And if you want to talk about being insulting to other lineages and not promoting good will, just read "Mastering Kung Fu"!!!!!

I have a question. It seems like a couple of members of the online community here only use MKF to do this. If this is the case, then what about these:

Anerlich's academy link
“Hung Gun Biu's lineage became known as Hung Suen Wing Chun (Red Boat) and followed a tradition to pass down the full system only to family members who took the traditional and ceremonial Siu Lam vow of secrecy. The system's lineage shows that Hung Gun Biu taught his relative, Cheung Gung who passed it down to his great nephew, Wang Ting. Wang Ting taught his son, Dr Wang Ming, of Saiquan, China. Dr Wang Ming taught the entire system with its original concepts to only four disciples. (Extract from Complete Wing Chun Robert Chu, Rene Ritchie and Y. Wu 1998)

In 1950, Yip Man started to teach Wing Chun in Hong Kong. One of his first students was chosen to be the sole inheritor of the traditional teachings of Wing Chun, William Cheung Cheuk Hing. In 1982, two of his students won both the Heavyweight and Middleweight divisions of the World Invitation Full Contact Kung Fu Championships in Hong Kong..” ~ Academy link from Anerlich’s sig.

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???

Now, that chapter on Hung Suen Wing Chun was originally written by John Murphy (HFY member, not a TWC member), altered and edited by the authors of CWC (non members of either family), and yet again altered in the article on the Combat Centres website. That's two times the original writing has been altered in 7 years. You will also see at the bottom of that same page:

“The Wing Chun curriculum that you will see taught here will be different to any other Wing Chun curriculum. Our Wing Chun is primarily Hung Suen Wing Chun lineage whereas most other Wing Chun schools can be traced back to Hong Kong, and have varying degrees of purity.

If you would like to do further reading on different Wing Chun lineages taught today, we recommend Complete Wing Chun by R. Chu, R. Ritchie and Y. Wu, Tutle publications. We trust you will enjoy your experience of the true teachings of Wing Chun.”

Our Wing Chun is primarily Hung Suen Wing Chun lineage whereas most other Wing Chun schools can be traced back to Hong Kong, and have varying degrees of purity?

We trust you will enjoy your experience of the true teachings of Wing Chun?

Insulting? Promoting good will? Take a look around, Keith. Yet, HFY is the only one getting blamed for “superiority complexes” around here. Personally, I don't take offense to any of this because it seems to be the norn. I'm just pointing out that scrutiny goes 360' in all directions.

From Complete Wing Chun

online link:
“It is sincerely hoped that this work will not be misused to merely create more believable "ancient mythical marketing slants" for newly formed "lost branches" of Wing Chun Kuen” ~ Robert Chu.

Hey, man, I didn't say it. Work? Contradictory? Hmmm... Whose doing the editing around here?

In my view, HFY and TWC have the same "historical" problem. Neither can produce evidence of existence prior to GM Gee or GM Cheung. Take Yip Man ....his teacher was Chan Wah Shun. People in China knew CWS and can vouce for that. CWS had other students that people in China knew. CWS's son teaches WCK. CWS's teacher was Leung Jan. People in China knew Leung Jan. LJ had other students that are still teaching. Take Yuen Kay Shan ....other people knew his teachers, his teachers had other students, etc. But we don't find any HFY or TWC prior to Gee or Cheung.

The thing is, you qualified your statement with “in my view”. Let’s not overlook that. More over, is the general public to understand that you are so well connected to the private sectors of the martial arts world that you can confidently say neither TWC or HFY can provide evidence of existence beyond their generations? That’s a big statement. The inheritors of these two lineages dedicate their lives to teaching their kung fu to the world, sharing with the community and enriching people’s lives, and you come here questioning the legitimacy of their heritage? So, who are you, then? Are you putting them on trial? Do you really think they care to prove where they came from to some online folk, more so that teaching and training what they believe in? I bet they’ve got better things to do than prove themselves to people they don’t even know.

“Prove to me your dad and your grandpa and great grandfather really existed. I wanna see documentation, pictures, artifacts, and blood samples. Then I’ll know your legit.” How pompous does that sound?

Being secretive and evasive and not answering simple and direct questions has most definetly not helped HFY's cause. Nor has it made it seem any more "legitimate."

So, what is HFY’s cause? Without learning the HFY system, how can ANYONE say it is or is not legitimate?

As long as HFY remains secretive and evasive, people are going to be leary of them. As long as its members seem so defensive and talk like the "mystic zen warrior", people are going to be suspicious. If you want to be part of the greater WCK community, then you have to act like it. Refusing to respond to legitimate questions from curious "cousins" is not helping. Attacking people that have such questions is not helping.

This is not the case at all. There are NO secrets. We are totally open when it comes to discussing HFY, but we choose to be only in a face to face environment. Please keep in mind the “greater WCK community” does not equate to the KFO community. We are no doubt within the community, just not in this forum. The online environment leaves too much room for things said to be misconstrued. So the skepticism is on ALL sides. Helping curious “cousins” we most definitely do, until their intentions change for the worse. Ill intention and a poor track record for people with such questions are being mislead IF they think they will get a straightforward answer to their questions from those they have given reason to not trust.

[Alan Orr]

Originally Posted by KPM

Why?! I didn't take Alan's questions as an insult to anyone! I pointed out that I have many of the same questions! I DO feel you are overreacting. With all due respect, most of the HFY guys that care to post seem to have a big chip on their shoulders. And I'm not the only one that thinks that! And if you want to talk about being insulting to other lineages and not promoting good will, just read "Mastering Kung Fu"!!!!!

In my view, HFY and TWC have the same "historical" problem. Neither can produce evidence of existence prior to GM Gee or GM Cheung. Take Yip Man ....his teacher was Chan Wah Shun. People in China knew CWS and can vouce for that. CWS had other students that people in China knew. CWS's son teaches WCK. CWS's teacher was Leung Jan. People in China knew Leung Jan. LJ had other students that are still teaching. Take Yuen Kay Shan ....other people knew his teachers, his teachers had other students, etc. But we don't find any HFY or TWC prior to Gee or Cheung.

Marketing is another problem shared by HFY and TWC. When GM Cheung first began to promote TWC he did it by saying that TWC was the "original" or "traditional" form of WCK and that all others were "modified" and therefore inferior. Surprise, surprise....that didn't go over too well and over the ensuing decades he has never been able to prove his historical claims. So that marketing strategy has been toned down somewhat in recent years and TWC has benefited from that. HFY has taken the same tack, and it isn't working for HFY any more than it did for TWC. Being secretive and evasive and not answering simple and direct questions has most definetly not helped HFY's cause. Nor has it made it seem any more "legitimate."

None of this is meant as an insult to either WCK family. Its just a statement of how things are in the WCK community.

As long as HFY remains secretive and evasive, people are going to be leary of them. As long as its members seem so defensive and talk like the "mystic zen warrior", people are going to be suspicious. If you want to be part of the greater WCK community, then you have to act like it. Refusing to respond to legitimate questions from curious "cousins" is not helping. Attacking people that have such questions is not helping.

Good post Keith. The HFY guys hate being asked anything, but they like to talk alot. I have never add any problem with TWC or any other branch of wing chun. I have not even a problem with HFY. I do have a problem with the guys in that group who always attack my teacher and have nothing to say but child like name calling.

Asking and answering questions is what people do on forums.

Regards

Alan

[Alan Orr]

Originally Posted by duende

Ok then... perhaps I should not have said many people. But certainly I have heard it here on KFO more than once. Regardless, it does not change the fact that people here are complacent to only believe what they have been told. And that those who draw the most attention to themselves (or in this case... post the most) are considered experts.

Open-mindedness and even a simple benefit of the doubt every once in awhile are often left behind. Why??? Because any other understandings or insights are considered a threat to their personal knowledge-base and ego.

You say, Mastering Kung Fu was insulting. I agree that the wording could have been written in a way that was less confrontational.

But if you truly read MKF, what you have is a VTM research section, and HFY technical knowledge section. The HFY section is not insulting whatsoever. It's the VTM's current findings that people don't care for.

So if you or anyone has a problem with the VTM's findings, you should take it up with them. I'm sure they would be more then happy to explain their position with you.

Yet we are accused of over-marketing. Dammm... Most other WC lineages have several books out.... not to mention numerous DVD's and videos. Maybe you should read some of those books and dvd's before you cast judgement on our single book.


As for secrecy and being evasive??? WTF?? Look at this thread. Along with TWC, we have shared more than any other lineage. But besides that, we are studying martial arts are we not?

What makes you think you are privileged to know such details of our system?

What gives you the rights to make demands of our knowledge???

The answer is.... Nothing!

As for Alan Orr.... to repost those questions after they've not only been addressed here, but addressed directly to his Sifu???

It's no wonder why the guy doesn't want head shots allowed in Chi Sao competitions.

This is the find of post that says a lot but answers nothing. HFY 101!

BTY the chui sao event will have strikes to the head. I not sure what your point is? The event is for people interested in helping wing chun grow and gain respect in the real martial art world.

VTM and HFY, well we have never seen anything which is first hand research on this matter. It is always a point of view. That is not history at all. Its fine to have your view, but its not history Fact if you can not show it to be.

Alan

[Alan Orr]

Originally Posted by Savi

Well, you can only speak for yourself. You may not be insulted, but you are not from HFY and you don’t have Alan Orr’s reputation with the HFY family. There is a history of heated online discussion with Alan Orr and HFY members which has lead to no trust with this individual. So you have to consider those past discussions in that there are NO open discussions between Alan Orr and the HFY members. He has been informed on more than one occasion regarding his position with HFY members. He is no friend to this lineage. Consider that in addition to him trying to make a joke of HFY’s past inheritor by comparing him to a younger generation WC master. It is no far stretch to see how his so-called “questions” hold no validity to HFY.

To each their own. People cannot be controlled. Your observation also depends on what side of the fence you stand. Some members of HFY feel the need to react to things they feel slight their kung fu family, and act as they so choose. Again, they do not represent the whole of the HFY family; only themselves. Considering Alan is not in good standing with HFY, it is no wonder (many of if not all) its members have no reason to trust him. Many of his questions ARE ridiculous because:

a. he has a poor record of “questioning” the merit of the HFY system and lineage,
b. for the most part no one in HFY can speak for the TWC system (therefore no one in HFY can answer those questions),
c. most of those questions are just personal observations in question form,
d. one question in particular is a clear example of what NOT to say, in good standing or not, about anyone’s Sifu. Personalities aside, that’s like me saying ‘Hey, why does Jimmy Carter look like Stephen Harper?’ Different generations and different parties. People would take that differently (good or bad) depending on where they come from. No different here with the situation.
e. his "questions" really says that Alan Orr is calling HFY a made up, repackaged, rip off of TWC as initially rumored by his sifu Robert Chu.


I have a question. It seems like a couple of members of the online community here only use MKF to do this. If this is the case, then what about these:

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???

Now, that chapter on Hung Suen Wing Chun was originally written by John Murphy (HFY member, not a TWC member), altered and edited by the authors of CWC (non members of either family), and yet again altered in the article on the Combat Centres website. That's two times the original writing has been altered in 7 years. You will also see at the bottom of that same page:



Our Wing Chun is primarily Hung Suen Wing Chun lineage whereas most other Wing Chun schools can be traced back to Hong Kong, and have varying degrees of purity?

We trust you will enjoy your experience of the true teachings of Wing Chun?

Insulting? Promoting good will? Take a look around, Keith. Yet, HFY is the only one getting blamed for “superiority complexes” around here. Personally, I don't take offense to any of this because it seems to be the norn. I'm just pointing out that scrutiny goes 360' in all directions.

From Complete Wing Chun Hey, man, I didn't say it. Work? Contradictory? Hmmm... Whose doing the editing around here?


The thing is, you qualified your statement with “in my view”. Let’s not overlook that. More over, is the general public to understand that you are so well connected to the private sectors of the martial arts world that you can confidently say neither TWC or HFY can provide evidence of existence beyond their generations? That’s a big statement. The inheritors of these two lineages dedicate their lives to teaching their kung fu to the world, sharing with the community and enriching people’s lives, and you come here questioning the legitimacy of their heritage? So, who are you, then? Are you putting them on trial? Do you really think they care to prove where they came from to some online folk, more so that teaching and training what they believe in? I bet they’ve got better things to do than prove themselves to people they don’t even know.

“Prove to me your dad and your grandpa and great grandfather really existed. I wanna see documentation, pictures, artifacts, and blood samples. Then I’ll know your legit.” How pompous does that sound?


So, what is HFY’s cause? Without learning the HFY system, how can ANYONE say it is or is not legitimate?

This is not the case at all. There are NO secrets. We are totally open when it comes to discussing HFY, but we choose to be only in a face to face environment. Please keep in mind the “greater WCK community” does not equate to the KFO community. We are no doubt within the community, just not in this forum. The online environment leaves too much room for things said to be misconstrued. So the skepticism is on ALL sides. Helping curious “cousins” we most definitely do, until their intentions change for the worse. Ill intention and a poor track record for people with such questions are being mislead IF they think they will get a straightforward answer to their questions from those they have given reason to not trust.

Another great post which says - Nothing at all.

Attached to a small joke, as they can not answer any of the points without questioning the HFY story.

Why does HFY not put some clips up for people to see? Think about it.

Alan

[Ultimatewingchun]

Originally Posted by taltos

Parlati Sifu,

I thank you for your posts that attempt to keep the discussion productive. I have a few questions.

I am pretty sure that I understand what you mean by the central line and how you find it. I just wanted to verify (and not assume) some things...

You mentioned how to "draw" the central line from the lower cross hands position. I understand that this is how you define the left and right (east and west, as you said) boundaries.

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)?

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

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

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.)?

Thank you.

-Levi

***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.

[Wayfaring]

Originally Posted by Alan Orr

Good post Keith. The HFY guys hate being asked anything, but they like to talk alot. I have never add any problem with TWC or any other branch of wing chun. I have not even a problem with HFY. I do have a problem with the guys in that group who always attack my teacher and have nothing to say but child like name calling.

Asking and answering questions is what people do on forums.

Regards

Alan

Yeah. You can see how HFY guys hate to be asked anything by the abundance of information we're already sharing and discussing on this thread.

As far as Robert being brought up, that usually is in response to Terence's pinhead posts where he likes to make statements like he does here, and people asking him who he learned WCK from if he's so smart.

We also get that as Robert says he likes to run his WCK group more laid back like BJJ or something. That's fine. But he does have to take responsibility that if he doesn't want to talk to his students about being jerks, then he is going to have some backlash from it. So stop crying about name calling. We all get more lumps from a standard day of training than we do from "oh, somebody called me a name".

But anyway, I thought this thread was about questions about HFY and what's similar and different than TWC. What exactly does that have to do with you and Robert?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Once again, I would like to remind Alan, on one hand, and some of the HFY guys on the other hand, that the best way to find out about just how close the connections may (or may not) be between HFY and TWC is through a very thorough examination of the systems themselves.

If you really want to find something out about this Alan, beyond what we already know about the alleged histories of the two systems, and beyond the personality problems that some of us have had in the past (and surely I've had plenty to say about Benny Meng in the past, as you may recall)...

the best way, Alan, is to ignore the posts that are criticizing you, or Robert, or whatever.

Just ignore it. Who cares what some people may think about you or Robert?

Who cares what I really think about Benny Meng?

Who cares what some HFY guys may think about me?

BUT AN EXAMINATION OF THE TWO SYSTEMS FOR REASONS OF COMPARISON IS UNDENIABLY SOMETHING THAT INTERESTS MANY, MANY PEOPLE.

Don't you agree?