# Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun



## Marnetmar (Nov 11, 2014)

Anyone know anything about it? I've never seen anything else like it except for some of TWC's stuff so I'm wondering if it actually came from anything or if someone just made it up (I'm sorry, but you're gonna have a hell of a time convincing me that any martial art evolved completely in secret)


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 11, 2014)

I've trained it since around 2004, directly under the head of the system since 2005. It's a private style that was kept within the Chan family up until my current teacher who was the first person not blood related to inherit it. We're pretty different from TWC, but there's a small amount of overlap with what we do and several of the Yip Man/Leung Jan styles out there. If you have any specific questions I can probably field them.

Take a look at some of the Siu Nim Tao differences here:


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 14, 2014)

Thanks. I suppose I should probably start with the most basic: What are your style's origins, and does it have any connection with other mainland styles of W.C? :asian:


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 14, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> Thanks. I suppose I should probably start with the most basic: What are your style's origins, and does it have any connection with other mainland styles of W.C? :asian:



There's a lot of info to be had here:
Reading Room

and a video going over our family tree:





However I'll give you the TLDR version:
By oral legend we come from Tahn Sau Ng, the guy who founded the red boat opera society. After founding the red boats he got found out by the government and went into hiding with the Chan family who had financed the red boat opera effort, in return he taught them WC. It's connected in that we all supposedly come from that same source.


----------



## zuti car (Nov 14, 2014)

Basically TWC mixed with other stuff and modified .


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 18, 2014)

zuti car said:


> Basically TWC mixed with other stuff and modified .



Not even close.


----------



## zuti car (Nov 18, 2014)

Some time ago I was talking with Jehovah witness . He tried to convert me and I explained to him that his "religion" is a mix of Adventist teaching , Judaism and some stuff invented by their founder . Although he was able to see all historical data , well documented he still tried to convince me that his "religion" was founded by Jesus Christ and it is only , true path of Christianity . It was fun for a while but when he stated to be nervous and aggressive , constantly repeating same things over and over again I gave up and left .  Similar thing we have in Wing Chun , people will believe in almost everything . For me , if there is no evidence to support some story then it is highly probable that story is fake .


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 19, 2014)

zuti car said:


> Some time ago I was talking with Jehovah witness . He tried to convert me and I explained to him that his "religion" is a mix of Adventist teaching , Judaism and some stuff invented by their founder . Although he was able to see all historical data , well documented he still tried to convince me that his "religion" was founded by Jesus Christ and it is only , true path of Christianity . It was fun for a while but when he stated to be nervous and aggressive , constantly repeating same things over and over again I gave up and left .  Similar thing we have in Wing Chun , people will believe in almost everything . For me , if there is no evidence to support some story then it is highly probable that story is fake .



The blade cuts both ways, your version also has no proof. Long story short, you're just talking trash with no evidence.


----------



## zuti car (Nov 20, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> The blade cuts both ways, your version also has no proof. Long story short, you're just talking trash with no evidence.



I have seen some HFY techniques , if  there wasn't "HFY"  in title i would be sure that was TWC because thous things I saw were identical with things I have practiced while I was still involved in TWC . Asking for evidence is not equal with "talking trash" . If you have any real evidence to support your story be free to share them .I am open minded and will accept everything that can be proved , if not I will base my opinion on what I know and see , and what see is slightly modified and overtheorized TWC .


----------



## dlcox (Nov 20, 2014)

I have heard that the term "Hung Fa Yi" was used by several offshoot branches of "Village" Wing Chun methods employed during the Taiping rebellion. It draws "Purity" into question but certainly not "Legitimacy".


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 20, 2014)

Welp, this went downhill fast.


----------



## VT_Vectis (Nov 20, 2014)

zuti car said:


> I have seen some HFY techniques , if  there wasn't "HFY"  in title i would be sure that was TWC because thous things I saw were identical with things I have practiced while I was still involved in TWC . Asking for evidence is not equal with "talking trash" . If you have any real evidence to support your story be free to share them .I am open minded and will accept everything that can be proved , if not I will base my opinion on what I know and see , and what see is slightly modified and overtheorized TWC .



Can I ask what makes you believe that TWC is the progenitor? It's entirely possible William Cheung encountered a HFY practitioner and absorbed their teachings into a slightly modified, undertheorised version of a Hung Fa Yi... Considering the only person who says that Yip Man taught modified wc to everyone but William Cheung, is William Cheung himself, I find this far more likely.

Disclaimer; I've trained in neither HFY or TWC, this is just me commenting on the above posts.


----------



## zuti car (Nov 20, 2014)

VT_Vectis said:


> Can I ask what makes you believe that TWC is the progenitor? It's entirely possible William Cheung encountered a HFY practitioner and absorbed their teachings into a slightly modified, undertheorised version of a Hung Fa Yi... Considering the only person who says that Yip Man taught modified wc to everyone but William Cheung, is William Cheung himself, I find this far more likely.
> 
> Disclaimer; I've trained in neither HFY or TWC, this is just me commenting on the above posts.



I know some things , private things  I will not discuss on a public forum ,which led me to a conclusion that HFY is nothing more than modified TWC . And of course there is obvious similarity or maybe "identical" is better word in techniques , stances, angles of entry , footwork ...
About modified vs "original" story , nobody believe in that any more and I quit TWC because it is incomplete and superficial , whole thing is created to catch certain type of people . Same thing I can see in HFY ,although HFY approach is much more sophisticated and founfder put much more effort to make his story attractive and fit for present time .


----------



## zuti car (Nov 20, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> Welp, this went downhill fast.



It is not , purpose of the forum is to allow people to discus and sometimes people will have different opinions . Now , if you say that you have the best , the purest , the most complete wing chun ,then you should be able to back that up with some kind of evidence , and I mean real evidence .


----------



## KPM (Nov 20, 2014)

VT_Vectis said:


> Can I ask what makes you believe that TWC is the progenitor? It's entirely possible William Cheung encountered a HFY practitioner and absorbed their teachings into a slightly modified, undertheorised version of a Hung Fa Yi... Considering the only person who says that Yip Man taught modified wc to everyone but William Cheung, is William Cheung himself, I find this far more likely.
> 
> Disclaimer; I've trained in neither HFY or TWC, this is just me commenting on the above posts.


 
 The problem with this theory is timeframe.  William Cheung is quite a bit older than Garrett Gee.  So very unlikely that Cheung learned from Gee.  Maybe Cheung learned from Garrett Gee's teacher, or someone else in the HFY lineage, but if he did this would be good support for the HFY story and I would think Garrett Gee would have something to say about it.  Because a problem with HFY is that there seems to be no one else in the world teaching it other than Garrett Gee and his students.


----------



## VT_Vectis (Nov 21, 2014)

.


----------



## VT_Vectis (Nov 21, 2014)

Fair enough.


----------



## VT_Vectis (Nov 21, 2014)

KPM said:


> The problem with this theory is timeframe.  William Cheung is quite a bit older than Garrett Gee.  So very unlikely that Cheung learned from Gee.  Maybe Cheung learned from Garrett Gee's teacher, or someone else in the HFY lineage, but if he did this would be good support for the HFY story and I would think Garrett Gee would have something to say about it.  Because a problem with HFY is that there seems to be no one else in the world teaching it other than Garrett Gee and his students.



I see, yeah that makes sense. Thanks


----------



## zuti car (Nov 21, 2014)

Is there any HFY practitioner  in China ? I mean separate from Gee


----------



## dlcox (Nov 22, 2014)

According to Garrett Gee: Hong Guan Biao's real name was Chu Tian Zou and was adopted by the Chen family, who were big in the opera. He took the Chen family name and later joined the Hong Guan Hui (Red Turban Society) and became known as Chen Biao. He became the leader and trained 1,000's in the art of Hong Hua Quan (Red Flower Fist) during the period of 1862-1874. Then retired in 1874 and called his art Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun Quan. The Hong Hua Yi states that their art comes from ancestor "Speck of Dust" of Henan Shaolin and his/her disciple Tan Shou Wu. Here's the problem.....

The Hong Guan Hui was founded by Chen Kai He and Li Wen Mao. Chen Kai He was the leader of the Guangdong Tian Di Hui and Li Wen Mao was a Yong Chun ancestor. In fact Li Wen Mao was a practitioner of Yong Chun Bai He Quan and a member of the Opera. He practiced a Sanshi method of Yong Chun Bai He Quan, which is believed to be the same method as taught to Liang Yi Dai (one of Liang Zan's teachers). Li Wen Mao was the leader/founder of the  Hong Guan Hui (Red Turban Society) who's members originally dressed in elaborate opera costumes and started the "Red Turban Rebellion". Later, some members not being able to afford the elaborate costume, dressed in a red sash, a red bandanna and carried a red pole. 

Now this is not to discredit Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun stylists and their system or lineage, I'm simply stating facts. Li Wen Mao was the leader of the Hong Guan Hui and he was a 3rd generation student of Yong Chun Bai He Quan founder Fang Qiniang. So what he taught to his "Red Turban Army" was Bai He Quan in Sanshi method, the same as taught to the famous Dr. Liang Zan by Liang Yi Dai. It could not have come from "Speck of Dust" and Tan Shou Wu, it came from Fang Qiniang. All legends state that Huang Hua Bao and Liang Zan created the 3 standard forms from the Sanshi material, which came from Fang Qiniang. The term "Red Bandanna Biao" may very well be legitimate and if he was real, he would have been a student/follower of Li Wen Mao, only to later create his version of Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun Quan when he retired in 1874. Huang Hua Bao would have most definitely been his senior, Li Wen Mao was senior to Huang Hua Bao, it also adds credence to the oral legends of "Village" methods of Yong Chun being called "Hong Hua Yi" as it was a method not yet codified. Also, if Huang Hua Bao and Liang Zan are credited with creating the 3 standard forms....How did Hong Guan Biao obtain them? They are not listed in the ancestry of Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun. If he crossed trained with someone from Huang Hua Bao's lineage why weren't they given credit? Why does no one else practice this art? Not to say it isn't legitimate as far as Yong Chun is concerned just saying that IMO it is simply a modified family style with a suspect history trying to appear, in that ever so grand Chinese fashion, older and more original for marketing purposes.


----------



## dlcox (Nov 22, 2014)

And just to clarify, I'm not putting the art down. I know very little about it and it could be a very good art. I'm only pointing out the discrepancies in the history and adding in my perspective as I understand things. I very well could be wrong on all accounts.


----------



## LFJ (Nov 22, 2014)

"Speck of Dust"?


----------



## dlcox (Nov 22, 2014)

LFJ said:


> "Speck of Dust"?



Yi Chen Dashi the Shaolin ancestor who supposedly created Yong Chun and taught it to Zhang Wu (Tan Shou Wu) who then brought it to the Opera.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 24, 2014)

zuti car said:


> I have seen some HFY techniques , if  there wasn't "HFY"  in title i would be sure that was TWC because thous things I saw were identical with things I have practiced while I was still involved in TWC . Asking for evidence is not equal with "talking trash" . If you have any real evidence to support your story be free to share them .I am open minded and will accept everything that can be proved , if not I will base my opinion on what I know and see , and what see is slightly modified and overtheorized TWC .



You didn't ask for evidence, therefore you *were* talking trash.

I'll bite - AFAIK we've never released any application footage, so what techniques have you seen and where?


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 24, 2014)

zuti car said:


> I know some things , private things  I will not discuss on a public forum ,which led me to a conclusion that HFY is nothing more than modified TWC . And of course there is obvious similarity or maybe "identical" is better word in techniques , stances, angles of entry , footwork ...
> About modified vs "original" story , nobody believe in that any more and I quit TWC because it is incomplete and superficial , whole thing is created to catch certain type of people . Same thing I can see in HFY ,although HFY approach is much more sophisticated and founfder put much more effort to make his story attractive and fit for present time .



So let me get this straight, every time TWC and HFY guys meet face to face we both walk away going "yeah, we're doing pretty different stuff" yet you have some mythical evidence which proves everyone wrong but can't share it because of a non-reason. Who is the Jehova's witness now?


----------



## LFJ (Nov 24, 2014)

dlcox said:


> Yi Chen Dashi the Shaolin ancestor who supposedly created Yong Chun and taught it to Zhang Wu (Tan Shou Wu) who then brought it to the Opera.



Yeah, I looked it up. They say it was a 22nd generation disciple of Shaolin in Henan, and that "Yi" denotes the 22nd generation, which is not true based on the Shaolin Caodong sect generation poem the generation names are taken from. Even looking at the generation poem from the Linji sect of Chan, it still wouldn't be "Yi".

Whoever made up their creation myth didn't even know anything about Shaolin, or their ancestor lied about being from Shaolin...


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 24, 2014)

zuti car said:


> I know some things , private things  I will not discuss on a public forum



Let me guess, they threatened to kill you if you told anyone? :|

I'm not trying to be rude and I'm not trying to say that HFY isn't a good system, but this response gets old after a while.


----------



## geezer (Nov 25, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Who is the Jehovah's witness now?



Boy, I'd almost take _that _for my new signature line! 

Anyway, I find this whole thread kind of amusing, since I don't put too much stock in any of our origin myths. Including those of my lineage. They are not without value as stories that define the character of our art. But neither are they the literal, historical truth. I have not met Eric, but I did spar with a guy who took some private training with him. After a brief time working with Eric, he became much tougher to handle. That tells me that his kung-fu is real. The rest doesn't matter.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 25, 2014)

dlcox said:


> The Hong Guan Hui was founded by Chen Kai He and Li Wen Mao. Chen Kai He was the leader of the Guangdong Tian Di Hui and Li Wen Mao was a Yong Chun ancestor. In fact Li Wen Mao was a practitioner of Yong Chun Bai He Quan and a member of the Opera. He practiced a Sanshi method of Yong Chun Bai He Quan, which is believed to be the same method as taught to Liang Yi Dai (one of Liang Zan's teachers). Li Wen Mao was the leader/founder of the  Hong Guan Hui (Red Turban Society) who's members originally dressed in elaborate opera costumes and started the "Red Turban Rebellion". Later, some members not being able to afford the elaborate costume, dressed in a red sash, a red bandanna and carried a red pole.
> 
> Now this is not to discredit Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun stylists and their system or lineage, I'm simply stating facts. Li Wen Mao was the leader of the Hong Guan Hui and he was a 3rd generation student of Yong Chun Bai He Quan founder Fang Qiniang. So what he taught to his "Red Turban Army" was Bai He Quan in Sanshi method, the same as taught to the famous Dr. Liang Zan by Liang Yi Dai. It could not have come from "Speck of Dust" and Tan Shou Wu, it came from Fang Qiniang. All legends state that Huang Hua Bao and Liang Zan created the 3 standard forms from the Sanshi material, which came from Fang Qiniang. The term "Red Bandanna Biao" may very well be legitimate and if he was real, he would have been a student/follower of Li Wen Mao, only to later create his version of Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun Quan when he retired in 1874. Huang Hua Bao would have most definitely been his senior, Li Wen Mao was senior to Huang Hua Bao, it also adds credence to the oral legends of "Village" methods of Yong Chun being called "Hong Hua Yi" as it was a method not yet codified. Also, if Huang Hua Bao and Liang Zan are credited with creating the 3 standard forms....How did Hong Guan Biao obtain them? They are not listed in the ancestry of Hong Hua Yi Yong Chun. If he crossed trained with someone from Huang Hua Bao's lineage why weren't they given credit? Why does no one else practice this art? Not to say it isn't legitimate as far as Yong Chun is concerned just saying that IMO it is simply a modified family style with a suspect history trying to appear, in that ever so grand Chinese fashion, older and more original for marketing purposes.



Hey dlcox, you put out a bunch of interesting history tidbits, so I wanted to make sure I did my homework before I got back to you on this. Li Wen Mao was in fact a leader in the red turban uprising - that does not mean he was a member or a senior of the Hun Gun Wui organization that HFY claims an ancestor from. 

The Red Turban rebellion is comparable to more modern history such as the civil right movement in the 1960's in the USA. Li Wen Mao is a figurehead much as Martin Luther King was here. However, there were other groups who were part of the same movement but in a different place (Black Panthers in Oakland, etc) who were independent of one another but considered part of the same struggle. It's from one of those independent cells in a different province that we claim an ancestor, not the organization of Li Wen Mao. 

I can't speak to the creation of SNT/CK/BG, but we do have a training set credited to Hung Gun Biu himself which is a training module in between SNT and CK. If it's true, that means that the 3 forms existed as far back as Tahn Sau Ng, because the two lines didn't intermix after that point. Also, it may be not that Wong Wa Bo and Leung Yi Tai invented the forms so much as codified what belonged to each set as far as they knew before passing it on - I've heard conflicting stories on that one as well. As far as why other people don't practice our branch of the art, that horse has already been beaten to death, I'm not going to rehash what can easily be found with a search function.

It's interesting that you subscribe to the White crane as a direct Wing Chun ancestor theory, really the only guy pushing that these days is Hendrik Santos. Even his formerly close associates have brought to light him signing on internet forums under multiple identities to have conversations with himself where he reveals "evidence" that has pretty much always turned out to be falsified. He's forged Kuen Kuit that the Cho family later discredited, had fallings out with the Snake and Crane WC people and multiple other groups. Heck, he even got kicked out of KFO for being full of bologna (which, if you've spent any time over there, is a pretty tremendous accomplishment). So while every history (including my line's) should be up for questioning... just be careful where your information comes from.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 25, 2014)

geezer said:


> Boy, I'd almost take _that _for my new signature line!
> 
> Anyway, I find this whole thread kind of amusing, since I don't put too much stock in any of our origin myths. Including those of my lineage. They are not without value as stories that define the character of our art. But neither are they the literal, historical truth. I have not met Eric, but I did spar with a guy who took some private training with him. After a brief time working with Eric, he became much tougher to handle. That tells me that his kung-fu is real. The rest doesn't matter.



Haha, I miss that guy, he was the only reliable Wing Chun student I ever had in Phoenix!


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 25, 2014)

dlcox said:


> I have heard that the term "Hung Fa Yi" was used by several offshoot branches of "Village" Wing Chun methods employed during the Taiping rebellion. It draws "Purity" into question but certainly not "Legitimacy".



There are also Hung Fa Kuen Systems that have nothing to do with Hung Fa Yi or Wing Chun at all, further complicating historical tracing =/


----------



## zuti car (Nov 26, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> So let me get this straight, every time TWC and HFY guys meet face to face we both walk away going "yeah, we're doing pretty different stuff" yet you have some mythical evidence which proves everyone wrong but can't share it because of a non-reason. Who is the Jehova's witness now?


I am not TWC guy and I do not claim anything , just asking questions


----------



## zuti car (Nov 26, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> Let me guess, they threatened to kill you if you told anyone? :|
> 
> I'm not trying to be rude and I'm not trying to say that HFY isn't a good system, but this response gets old after a while.


Actually, at the time TWC guys threatened to kill me because I was the only voice against their "original " story in my country and at time there was only one club which was not practicing TWC , one among maybe 50 or 60 clubs. 
About HFY  what I can see and what know it is modified TWC . All these theories borrowed from 20 th century physics and "histories' will not change that . I do not say it is bad ,it is possible that it is much better than TWC now  .


----------



## zuti car (Nov 26, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> You didn't ask for evidence, therefore you *were* talking trash.
> 
> I'll bite - AFAIK we've never released any application footage, so what techniques have you seen and where?















You may write "hfy" in the title but i still see twc . All these things are still practiced in Serbia in almost all TWC clubs . To be honest this is older version of TWC  and i know that because I have practiced that version .


----------



## Marnetmar (Nov 26, 2014)

zuti car said:


> Actually, at the time TWC guys threatened to kill me because I was the only voice against their "original " story.



Sounds your everyday bunch of TWC guys.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 26, 2014)

zuti car said:


> Actually, at the time TWC guys threatened to kill me because I was the only voice against their "original " story in my country



That is a level of insanity I can not fathom. No one in our organization has ever required me to believe anything, however I have had dealings with some elements that do operate that way. I am sorry you had such an experience.


----------



## Eric_H (Nov 26, 2014)

zuti car said:


> You may write "hfy" in the title but i still see twc . All these things are still practiced in Serbia in almost all TWC clubs . To be honest this is older version of TWC  and i know that because I have practiced that version .



I see some differences that what is presented in TWC (not trying to get to the blindside as a big one). But I also haven't seen more than some videos from Phil Redmond and a few old ones featuring GM Cheung. Are you saying you were taught to do Biu Sao against a hook punch differently than them?

Take the first clip with a grain of salt as the instructor in the video is a teacher of other kung fu styles and may not have been a great representation the HFY of doing things when it was filmed. I'm sure he would look at that video today, after my teacher's most recent trip down there, and roll his eyes the way I do at some of my old footage. 

We've got some clips that have been in limbo forever coming from HFY HQ, I'll be interested to see if your opinion changes when they are released.


----------



## zuti car (Nov 26, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> That is a level of insanity I can not fathom. No one in our organization has ever required me to believe anything, however I have had dealings with some elements that do operate that way. I am sorry you had such an experience.


I had similar experiences not only because I proved william's story false but also because I do not believe in "histories" do not worship "grandmaster" , I am always searching for  evidence and because of that approach I have exposed may things people still believe as false , as nothing more as a myth or simple marketing strategy.On the other hand , many kung fu people taking their arts too seriously , and for not a small number of them kung fu is a form of surrogate religion . A lot of them are caught in the "original , the best style, the oldest style" stories like the style it self makes them better from all other kung fu practitioners. When I told my point view many of them got angry and they tried to intimidate me , I am receiving threats all the time and offensive and derogatory mails on daily bases . A lot of other stuff happened as well , but it is ok , I found it interestnig what re people prepare to do in order to defend their believes even when they face the facts . Of course no one ever tried to do anything for real because it would be interesting to see how kung fu works against a hunting rifle ...


----------



## zuti car (Nov 26, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> I see some differences that what is presented in TWC (not trying to get to the blindside as a big one). But I also haven't seen more than some videos from Phil Redmond and a few old ones featuring GM Cheung. Are you saying you were taught to do Biu Sao against a hook punch differently than them?
> 
> Take the first clip with a grain of salt as the instructor in the video is a teacher of other kung fu styles and may not have been a great representation the HFY of doing things when it was filmed. I'm sure he would look at that video today, after my teacher's most recent trip down there, and roll his eyes the way I do at some of my old footage.
> 
> We've got some clips that have been in limbo forever coming from HFY HQ, I'll be interested to see if your opinion changes when they are released.



I don't know what Redmond had been taught , what I know is that TWC changed over time . I k ow this because there are obvious differences from , let's say what Redmond is doing now and  what some people who learned TWC in the early 1990 are doing . All that is different from what William's younger brother is doing and for example what Bob Gabershek (one of the first william's students) is doing . It would take too much time explain the differences but all these people are doing same art but there are major differences in approach and even in theory and basic principles .
stuff on thous videos may be different from TWC now but what I see is TWC from 1990 's


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Haha, I miss that guy, he was the only reliable Wing Chun student I ever had in Phoenix!


I heard of that guy, the guy in which you speak of. He was a legendary fighter. He won many fights with only having to use his pinkys.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> Boy, I'd almost take _that _for my new signature line!
> 
> Anyway, I find this whole thread kind of amusing, since I don't put too much stock in any of our origin myths. Including those of my lineage. They are not without value as stories that define the character of our art. But neither are they the literal, historical truth. I have not met Eric, but I did spar with a guy who took some private training with him. After a brief time working with Eric, he became much tougher to handle. That tells me that his kung-fu is real. The rest doesn't matter.


Thanks Steve I miss you too! Xoxoxo!


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

Jake104 said:


> Thanks Steve I miss you too! Xoxoxo!


Wow nothing changes around here. Same BS, different day.

As for HFY? Touch hands and see. That's all that mattered to me. I could care less about the history. It is human nature to embellish a bit. Is HFY's history embellished? I don't know I don't care. The proof is in the puddin. Eric's a good guy. He wasn't AFRAID to meet a stranger at a park and touch hands. I could of been a mass murdering wing chun master for all he knew.

I liked Wing Chun better in the 90's before the interweb made it into such a joke. This thread is stupid!

Hey Eric give me a call next time your in town? You owe me a beer remember? The broken nose and those beatings you gave me on the reg haha. You have my number. We are still FB BFF's.


----------



## geezer (Nov 28, 2014)

Jake104 said:


> ...I liked Wing Chun better in the 90's before the interweb made it into such a joke. This thread is stupid!



Best post in a long time. Call me or Jeff -- it would be great to see you again!


----------



## Hendrik (Nov 28, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> It's interesting that you subscribe to the White crane as a direct Wing Chun ancestor theory, really the only guy pushing that these days is Hendrik Santos.
> 
> 
> Even his formerly close associates have brought to light him signing on internet forums under multiple identities to have conversations with himself where he reveals "evidence" that has pretty much always turned out to be falsified. He's forged Kuen Kuit that the Cho family later discredited, had fallings out with the Snake and Crane WC people and multiple other groups.
> ...




I have no interest on your HFY at all. And do not want to post here. But I would not take smearing.


Please do your home work before smear me.

I suggest you to visit Hong Kong Martial art community today, Find out what is the facts about those who try to smear me months ago  .

As for KFO, I left at my own decision,  never being kick out. Never being ask to leave.


As for Fujian white crane and emei 12 zhuang as the mother art of YKSLT, it is proven by evidence, on record. I suggest anyone who is serious to find out  read wing chun illustrated magazine.


you can create your His-story as you like,

Just leave me out of your his-story


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

geezer said:


> Best post in a long time. Call me or Jeff -- it would be great to see you again!


I will. I'm still doing my thing. Mostly form work and solo stuff. I see the DTE get togethers on FB and have been meaning to reconnect. I see Tiny has a group. Does Jeff still have a group? Tiny's is to far. I'm cheap.

Let me know next time your down here. I'm on the Facebook.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hendrik said:


> I have no interest on your HFY at all. And do not want to post here. But I would not take smearing.
> 
> 
> Please do your home work before smear me.
> ...


I like your stuff too! I'm a subscriber of your delight1000 on the YouTube. I like your explanations.


----------



## Hendrik (Nov 28, 2014)

Jake104 said:


> I like your stuff too! I'm a subscriber of your delight1000 on the YouTube. I like your explanations.



Thanks you!

It is better to deal with facts in history by evidence and in a scientific way, instead of  creat all kind of his-story, And then when one cannot back up with evidence, pull all kind of political smearing.

Public are not stupid, it is only a matter of time, they will find out what happen and everything will back fire.


----------



## Jake104 (Nov 28, 2014)

Hendrik said:


> Thanks you!
> 
> It is better to deal with facts in history by evidence and in a scientific way, instead of  creat all kind of his-story, then when one cannot back up with evidence, pull all kind of political smearing.
> 
> Public are not stupid, it is only a matter of time, they will find out what happen and everything will back fi





Hendrik said:


> Thanks you!
> 
> It is better to deal with facts in history by evidence and in a scientific way, instead of  creat all kind of his-story, And then when one cannot back up with evidence, pull all kind of political smearing.
> 
> Public are not stupid, it is only a matter of time, they will find out what happen and everything will back fire.


Sorry, You lost me after thank you!

History isn't going to help me when I'm getting my *** kicked. What I do in the present is what matters. Boom! How you like that. Fortune cookie wisdom!

The only way history may help. Is if I go to my happy place while I'm being beaten.


----------



## dlcox (Nov 28, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Hey dlcox, you put out a bunch of interesting history tidbits, so I wanted to make sure I did my homework before I got back to you on this. Li Wen Mao was in fact a leader in the red turban uprising - that does not mean he was a member or a senior of the Hun Gun Wui organization that HFY claims an ancestor from.
> 
> The Red Turban rebellion is comparable to more modern history such as the civil right movement in the 1960's in the USA. Li Wen Mao is a figurehead much as Martin Luther King was here. However, there were other groups who were part of the same movement but in a different place (Black Panthers in Oakland, etc) who were independent of one another but considered part of the same struggle. It's from one of those independent cells in a different province that we claim an ancestor, not the organization of Li Wen Mao.
> 
> ...



From the stories I've heard Li Wen Mao was the founder of the Hong Guan Hui, this doesn't mean it's true though. I agree with you that there were most likely splinter branches united in the same cause. I can't get in line with the idea that the forms go all the way back to the time of Tan Shou Wu, there is simply no evidence to support it, doesn't mean it's not plausible, it's just that I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. I think it would be really interesting to see documented proof of such a thing. I am aware of some other branches that do not associate the standard forms with Huang and Liang, stating a different route of transmission, but when looking into their lineages further the truth comes out. As far as Hendrik is concerned, he was only pushing the White Crane thing in effort to gain support of the White Crane people, his agenda has been all along the Emei Shier Zhuang Qigong, I do not support him or his "Theories". The history of White Crane, in comparison to Yong Chun, is very well documented. There is some overlap in the ancestry, Li Wen Mao being a big one along with Bai Jie. Now please don't take my statements as putting your system down, that is not the case. I know very little of your art and from what I have seen and read, conceptually and visually it looks solid to me. History wise, as with a lot of Yong Chun branches, there are things that for me just don't gel, but as I stated earlier this doesn't mean it's not a legitimate branch of the art. Sometimes when we don't have all the necessary information about our ancestry we rely on stories and fill in the rest with what makes the most sense given the circumstances. If we believed every Yong Chun origin story we would have several methods developing independently of one another yet being nearly identical in construction. We know logically that this could not be the case, so it leaves us with an older, as of yet, unidentified root source or that the art as we know it today was codified in the early to mid 1800's and the splintering occurred shortly after. Since very little can be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, we are simply left with has been passed down within are own lineages as well as are own deductions. I apologize if I came off as off putting, it wasn't my intention just adding in my 2 cents to the discussion. Best of luck in your training.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 3, 2014)

Jake104 said:


> Wow nothing changes around here. Same BS, different day.
> 
> As for HFY? Touch hands and see. That's all that mattered to me. I could care less about the history. It is human nature to embellish a bit. Is HFY's history embellished? I don't know I don't care. The proof is in the puddin. Eric's a good guy. He wasn't AFRAID to meet a stranger at a park and touch hands. I could of been a mass murdering wing chun master for all he knew.
> 
> ...



I'll be in the 21st, I haven't forgotten that I owe you - don't worry


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 3, 2014)

dlcox said:


> From the stories I've heard Li Wen Mao was the founder of the Hong Guan Hui, this doesn't mean it's true though. I agree with you that there were most likely splinter branches united in the same cause. I can't get in line with the idea that the forms go all the way back to the time of Tan Shou Wu, there is simply no evidence to support it, doesn't mean it's not plausible, it's just that I haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise. I think it would be really interesting to see documented proof of such a thing. I am aware of some other branches that do not associate the standard forms with Huang and Liang, stating a different route of transmission, but when looking into their lineages further the truth comes out. As far as Hendrik is concerned, he was only pushing the White Crane thing in effort to gain support of the White Crane people, his agenda has been all along the Emei Shier Zhuang Qigong, I do not support him or his "Theories". The history of White Crane, in comparison to Yong Chun, is very well documented. There is some overlap in the ancestry, Li Wen Mao being a big one along with Bai Jie. Now please don't take my statements as putting your system down, that is not the case. I know very little of your art and from what I have seen and read, conceptually and visually it looks solid to me. History wise, as with a lot of Yong Chun branches, there are things that for me just don't gel, but as I stated earlier this doesn't mean it's not a legitimate branch of the art. Sometimes when we don't have all the necessary information about our ancestry we rely on stories and fill in the rest with what makes the most sense given the circumstances. If we believed every Yong Chun origin story we would have several methods developing independently of one another yet being nearly identical in construction. We know logically that this could not be the case, so it leaves us with an older, as of yet, unidentified root source or that the art as we know it today was codified in the early to mid 1800's and the splintering occurred shortly after. Since very little can be verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, we are simply left with has been passed down within are own lineages as well as are own deductions. I apologize if I came off as off putting, it wasn't my intention just adding in my 2 cents to the discussion. Best of luck in your training.



No insult taken, you made me do some more research - people that make you think are a rare thing on internet forums. Best to you as well.


----------



## Eric_H (Dec 3, 2014)

Hendrik said:


> As for Fujian white crane and emei 12 zhuang as the mother art of YKSLT, it is proven by evidence, on record. I suggest anyone who is serious to find out  read wing chun illustrated magazine.



Garbage.


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 4, 2014)

OH GOD I'VE CREATED A MONSTER


----------



## VT_Vectis (Dec 4, 2014)

Eric_H said:


> Garbage.





Hendrik said:


> I have no interest on your HFY at all. And do not want to post here. But I would not take smearing.
> 
> 
> Please do your home work before smear me.
> ...



I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this topic, nor the back story but I have read the  Emei etc articles in Wing Chun Illustrated and I have to say that imho they didn't go anywhere or give any real conclusions, after rereading them I'm still left scratching my head wondering how they are meant to prove what the intro says they do... Maybe it's just me...


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 5, 2014)

IIRC every other Opera WC family (Tang family, Lo family, etc. No, not the fruitcake psuedo-Hung Gar Andreas Hoffmann garbage) says that the three hand forms were derived, possibly by Leung Jan, from techniques seen in Sap Yat Sau and Sam Pai Fut, and neither of those forms were actually very long (I'll link some proper videos when I get home)

I don't know about anyone else but I find that theory easier to believe than the three forms and modern Wing Chun coming from a twenty minute long Chi Kung set of all things. Also, how did we get from HFY to this?


----------



## dlcox (Dec 5, 2014)

Marnetmar said:


> IIRC every other Opera WC family (Tang family, Lo family, etc. No, not the fruitcake psuedo-Hung Gar Andreas Hoffmann garbage) says that the three hand forms were derived, possibly by Leung Jan, from techniques seen in Sap Yat Sau and Sam Pai Fut, and neither of those forms were actually very long (I'll link some proper videos when I get home)
> 
> I don't know about anyone else but I find that theory easier to believe than the three forms and modern Wing Chun coming from a twenty minute long Chi Kung set of all things. Also, how did we get from HFY to this?



It's interesting the the 3 sections of Xiao Lin Tou are:

1. San Bei Fo - 3 Prayers to Buddha
2. Shiyi Shou - 11 Hands
3. Hua Quan - Flower Fist

This corresponds to 3 of the major "Weng Chun" hand forms. Begs to question, which came first the chicken or the egg?


----------



## Marnetmar (Dec 5, 2014)

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Changes my perspective a bit!


----------

