old MA mag article?

[Eric_H]

The East Asia Program of Cornell University. He's a Visiting Scholar there.

That's cool, it is certainly something. That school doesn't have any authority to speak for WC though.

There's a lot in the book (which is meticulously researched) that will upset Wing Chun students, but none of it is very surprising.

I don't think it is as meticulous as you say. He disqualifies all lineages that aren't from Ip Man in the first few chapters (that's about as far as I've gotten, but will continue to go through it).

Well the Yee Gi Kim Yeurng Ma is the basic Crane animal stance in a lot of different CMA, the Biu Ji is part of Snake styles, etc. Wing Chun didn't invent it.

No, but whoever did make WC did seem to filter everything through a new lens. New engine, new framework. Some things fit, some things don't.

Let's be honest, the origin myth of Wing Chun is a lie too, and tall tale telling is a fundamental part of Chinese martial arts.

If you're talking about the Ng Mui fable, then yes. I don't think anyone thinks that actually happened.

The full formal name of the Yee Gi Kim Yeurng Ma (二字羊馬步) is found in practically all styles that claim Shaolin heritage (and you have to concede, few arts flex their Shaolin rep more than Wing Chun, and it's often a little cringey).

I haven't studied all the different Shaolin descended styles, so I won't speak for them. Back to my original point, similar-to-same stances happen to show up in non-shaolin places too. However, I can't argue the cringey flex. Achievement unlocked, we've found common ground

 

[Oily Dragon]

Interesting. A sniff test in terms of what?

This thread is a great example. Read Hunschuld's responses, or the other Wing Chun trolls.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Yeah, that book. What did you think about the parallels of "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun" and Judkin's book? Awesome cover too! I'm personally partial to the fake Han style queue that LT is wearing, its a nice touch

It's interesting that Judkin's work is being mis-characterized by several posters, and that Leung Ting is only referenced on less than 20 pages of the work.

The other half dozen+ Leung family members collectively have more mentions.

I guess I should have mentioned Judkin's co-author at some point, but I assumed that people providing feedback on the book here, actually read it.

I was wrong. They not only haven't read it, they claim to have a PDF version of it...

 

[Oily Dragon]

Oil,

You need to stop sniffing whatever it is you sniff. You have confirmed that every post you have made on all topics are suspect because your clearly don't understand what you are reading.

I suggest everyone that thinks Oil knows what he is talking about read the book or at least the last third that deals with wing chun. The book is available for free in an online pdf. It took me about 5 minutes to find the complete book online for free.

I will not post the link since the book was written for profit.

As JLQ points out there is information available in China that has not made it to the rest of the world.
There are actually authenticated writings and documents about wing chun that exist ,most held in private families however some are public. A true scholarly book would have cited some of these for historical accuracy. Judkins does not use any of them. The book is fine for what it is.

 

[Oily Dragon]

Yes, really.




What gives you the impression that I am upset by this book?

Your posts and lies about the book. I don't believe you have a copy available, but if you do cite a page and line number for me.

Be a gentleman.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I must be getting really old and soft because I find myself agreeing with parts of what both you and Eric are saying.

...But anyway, it's really great to see informed people arguing about Wing Chun again! Keep it up.

Oh it's getting even better.

Somehow I accidentally conjured up the long-running beef between the Yip and Leung families, by posting the most definitive scholarly work on Wing Chun published, ever, according to reviews that matter.

This never, ever happens in the other southern schools...

 

[Oily Dragon]

That's cool, it is certainly something. That school doesn't have any authority to speak for WC though.

That's an interesting question.

I don't think it is as meticulous as you say. He disqualifies all lineages that aren't from Ip Man in the first few chapters (that's about as far as I've gotten, but will continue to go through it).

It's more like he takes a huge amount of people who claim to be legit Wing Chun and narrows them down, using genealogies and statements, to figure out who actually probably trained with who.

People change what they call their style all the time. Like I've been saying, it's a nest of various styles that co-mingled for a few hundred years. One person's Snake, Crane, and Dragon is another's Wing Chun is another's Jun Fan is another's something or other.

20 pages of references. The notes alone go from pp 283-312.

4 pages of references of over 150 works cited, of which Leung Ting authored 1.

"high school project" was a big red flag. Hoo boy, I've done it now. Too much truth at once.

 

[jlq]

Oily Dragon,
the premise for any good and productive discussion is a) the willingness and ability to hear/read what is actually being said and b) the ability to understand what is actually being presented. I don't know which one is the problem for you... But one thing is for sure, the points I made quite clearly do not register with you, as you have demonstrated repeatedly.

Let me give you an example:

I wrote this:

Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China, he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". The greater part of this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat (Mr. Judkin's brings quite a bit of information about that style into his book), a lesser part is actually about Wing Chun. This book is not actually a serious scholarly work, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project, or one of those obligatory papers certain research or study faculties/organizations have to produce on a regular bases, and since it is more about just getting them done than producing actual quality content, not too much work and effort is put into it.

Anyone with the capability to read and with a minimum of reading comprehension should be able to see that when I called something not a serious scholarly work, it was OBVIOUSLY not Mr. Judkin's book. Especially given that just above this paragraph I wrote the following:

Mr. Judkin's is a scholar par excellence, no doubt, and surely knows how to put together a work following academic standards.

So, as I specifically stated, I was referring specifically to the book "Fatsaan Martial Arts Culture", which is the main source Mr. Judkin's draws on when it comes to Wing Chun and its development in China.

But given your response:

jlq said:
This book is not actually a serious scholarly work, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project, or one of those obligatory papers certain research or study faculties/organizations have to produce on a regular bases, and since it is more about just getting them done than producing actual quality content, not too much work and effort is put into it.

You're one of the Wing Chun people upset by his book, aren't you?

This quite clearly went over your head...

I tried to clarify it for you:

What gives you the impression that I am upset by this book?

The passage of my post which you quoted, does not - again, I suggest you read more carefully what I wrote before drawing conclusions - relate to Mr. Judkin's book, but his main source of information about Gung Fu in Fatsaan, the "Fatsaan Martial Arts Culture". I wrote this quite clearly. You seem to have missed the point of what I wrote and why I wrote it...

Based on your latest response

"high school project" was a big red flag. Hoo boy, I've done it now. Too much truth at once.

it seems the only conclusion must be that you either do not read what is written or that things just don't register with you, in spite of multiple attempts to clarify things. Under such conditions, intelligent and productive discussions are impossible...

Now on to something else.

It's interesting that Judkin's work is being mis-characterized by several posters, and that Leung Ting is only referenced on less than 20 pages of the work.

The other half dozen+ Leung family members collectively have more mentions.

20 pages of references. The notes alone go from pp 283-312.

4 pages of references of over 150 works cited, of which Leung Ting authored 1.

Again, you quite obviously do not read or comprehend what is written, and as such unable to follow the argument.

To save some time, I shall quote myself once again:

Once again, I will point out that the scholarship, "scientific method" and presentation is impeccable, but it is not authoritative in any way because of the problems with the - very limited sources - he draws on when he actually discusses Wing Chun (Chapter4). I suggest you take a good look at those 90 references and check out which sources he drew on and to what extent. To put this in perspective: of 90 citations, 29 are from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" (Ma Zineng), 19 from "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun" (Leung Ting), 11 from Yip Chun and Tse, 10 from Yip Ching and Heimberger and 6 from Chu, Ritchie and Yu's "Complete Wing Chun". The rest are cited just once, mostly. D
So, while you might be impressed with the number of sources listed and think it is thorough and in-depth historical scholarship, as is evident from going through the citations list, it is anything but that. I suggest you do the work to count which works are cited in chapters 2 and 3 as well, when it comes to certain subjects and then reevaluate your statement about "well researched".

You obviously do not understand what I wrote... It seems you simply look at the lists of works cited, but didn't actually make the effort to read how much each of those works is actually cited in the text. Even when I listed it for you, you quite clearly did not bother to check for yourself, but simply keep hanging on whatever conviction which has entrenched itself in your head.

Which begs the question, have you ever written an academical paper yourself or do you know how to read one? If you had, you would understand that a common mistake (willful or unwilfull) is to quote as many sources as possible to give the work an air of being well-researched, but if 90 percent of the material used is taken from just 1 percent of the sources cited, that is actually a very badly researched work. Given that you are obviously more impressed by the number of sources listed instead of having an understanding of how and to what extent these sources are used, it seems you don't really know how to read and evaluate academic works.

But I am digressing...

It's interesting that Judkin's work is being mis-characterized by several posters, and that Leung Ting is only referenced on less than 20 pages of the work.

Where is Judkin's work being misrepresented? Do yo deny that whenever it comes to Wing Chun (say in chapters 3 and 4), he draws mainly on two sources? I pointed one chapter out to you, it is there in black and white for everyone - who bothers to look carefully - to see! I suggested you check out the notes for chapter 4, and see whether or not I am correct. Note that in several notes, several source are cited.

Again, Leung Ting is just mentioned once in the list of sources, but I am talking about the number of times this work has been quoted (see above).

Your posts and lies about the book. I don't believe you have a copy available, but if you do cite a page and line number for me.

Be a gentleman.

How do you get the idea that I am lying about the book and what exactly is a lie? Strong words, I hope you can back them up and show me some examples of where I lied about the book.

And once again, simply because I am far less impressed with this book than you are and don't think it has the same value as you do doesn't mean that I am upset by the book. It just means that it takes A LOT less to impress me than you...

You are obviously not using your brain - you could easily check whether or not my claims about chapter 4 and the number of notes and sources cited is accurate or not. Further, you can just as easily check if the book "Fatsaan Martial Arts Culture" is found in the list of works cited, and also if I got the author right.

How would I know these things if I don't have that particular book?

But since you are seemingly incapable of drawing a logical conclusion based on this, I shall indeed help you out a little bit, as requestd:

The notes to Chapter 4 (which show which sources are cited and how often) are found on pages 301-305 in the paperback edition (2015) and on pages 323-326 in the pdf version.

I guess I should have mentioned Judkin's co-author at some point, but I assumed that people providing feedback on the book here, actually read it.

I don't think we need to mention the co-author, as I doubt he actually contributed much. He is not a scholar, but Mr. Judkin's Wing Chun teacher. There is an interview with the authors somewhere on the internet on the publishing of the book. It doesn't sound like Mr. Nielson contributed that much from a scholarly perspective.

4 pages of references of over 150 works cited, of which Leung Ting authored 1.

Hm... 4 pages of references? In my paperback edition the list of works cited ("references") stretches from p. 327 to 335. A bit more than 4 pages... I wonder, did YOU really read the book?

If, for whatever absurd reason still insist that I don't own a copy of the book, I can make it even more easy for you: Simply hit me up on Whatsapp or Wechat, and we can do a live video call where I show you my copies of the book (digital and softcover versions).

Let me know...

Somehow I accidentally conjured up the long-running beef between the Yip and Leung families, by posting the most definitive scholarly work on Wing Chun published, ever, according to reviews that matter.

This never, ever happens in the other southern schools...

I think for some reason you have too much emotion invested in this - I can only speak for myself, but you surely didn't conure up any "beef between Yip and Leung families". Why is there any beef between anyone simply because some people point out that there are some limitations associated with the work you obviously treasure like a bible? I can only speak for myself, but I have no beef with anyone, I do not champion any particular lineage or their view on things. I would guess hunschuld feels exactly the same...

I can see that you base your belief and argument based on some sort of "appeal to authority", a common mistake when trying to make a point or strengthen one's argument. This indicates that you do not have enough knowledge or understanding of the subject to form your own opinion and apply some critical analysis and thinking when it comes to the subject. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whatever the reviews say, and who wrote them - the fact that the parts relating to actual Wing Chun (its history and development in Mainland China) is mainly based upon a few works and as such is very much lacking in information. And as such it is not quite that authoritative as the hype portrays it.

Again, to you - based on what knowledge and experience you have - it might very well be very impressive, to others less so. Still, I would agree that it is the best book of its kind, but with its limitations. I would definitely recommend any Wing Chun enthusiast to study it, but take it as a reference, not a definitive and exhaustive source on the subject. I said as much before, but maybe this time it will sink in.

Finally, you conveniently ignored my question as to your actual martial arts background, so forgive me for repeating the questions:

1. How long have you been training in Wing Chun, which teacher and in which lineage?
2. How long have you been practicing Lam Sai Wing's Hung Ga Kuen?

For now...

Best regards

 

[Oily Dragon]

I wrote this:

Anyone with the capability to read and with a minimum of reading comprehension should be able to see...

So, as I specifically stated, I was referring specifically to the book "Fatsaan Martial Arts Culture", which is the main source Mr. Judkin's draws on when it comes to Wing Chun and its development in China.

Why do you keep lying about this book? Why do you and Hunschuld keeping changing the "main" source? Is it Leung Ting, or that?

I've got plenty of Wing Chun cred, bud. You're not going to win this.

I also have the book in hand. You do not.

 

[Oily Dragon]

I can only speak for myself, but you surely didn't conure up any "beef between Yip and Leung families".

I sure did.

You're not fooling anyone.

Definitely not me, you might as well consider me your Wing Chun Overlord.

 

[jlq]

Hmm... who is the troll?



I don't think anyone can be so dense as to not understand clearly what I wrote, or keep repeating nonsense in the manner you do unless one is willfully oblique...



But since it is fun and puts into perspective how seriously one should take you:

Why do you keep lying about this book? Why do you and Hunschuld keeping changing the "main" source? Is it Leung Ting, or that?

I've got plenty of Wing Chun cred, bud. You're not going to win this.

I also have the book in hand. You do not.

Again you demonstrate your inability to read and comprehend what is written.

Who keeps changing the main source?

If you'd bother to actually read what I wrote, I wrote from the beginning that when it comes to the local Wing Chun and its development in Fatsaan, he mainly drew on the work I mentioned, followed by Leung Ting's book. I documented this by an actual citation count. I surely never changed anything, nor did hunschuld for that matter...

So, instead of simply repeatedly claiming I am lying about this book, do show exactly where and what I am lying about. If you can't... Well, better stay silent and concede that YOU are indeed the one who speaking nonsense.

What is it going to be?



As far as plenty of Wing Chun cred, among whom? People who don't know anything, perhaps... But the ones with a little bit of education on the subject undoubtedly recognize that you come across as a rather confused individual who is do quite a bit of very imaginative and creative dot-connecting.

The way you have been conducting yourself in this discussion, not reading, not comprehending, ignoring and not addressing counterpoints doesn't really indicate that you are "winning" anything. If you believe you are doing a good job defending your position, your appraisal of the situation is just as deluded as a lot of the "insights" you are trying to share on this forum.




If I don't have the book, explain where I got those numbers from... Since you have it in front of you, instead of simply claiming that I don't have the book, you could enlighten us what exactly is on those pages in your edition, a screenshot perhaps?

Anyway, since you insist that I don't have the book, let's hook up on Whatsapp, and I shall show you live the book and the pages I referred to. If you are not willing to back up your claim or take this offer, the appropriate thing to do is to let the matter go and remain silent.

The ball is in your court...

I sure did.

You're not fooling anyone.

Definitely not me, you might as well consider me your Wing Chun Overlord.

This just confirms an ongoing trend, that your imagination and reality are at times quite far from each other.



So, what exactly is the beef you have conjured up between Yip and Leung family? And how does that relate in any way to the points I have been making?

Please do explain yourself...

I would consider your more of an "Overlord of Delusion", if anything.




To round this off, let me repeat the questions:

1. How long have you been training in Wing Chun, which teacher and in which lineage?
2. How long have you been practicing Lam Sai Wing's Hung Ga Kuen?


Are there any answers forthcoming?




Best regards

 

[Eric_H]

That's an interesting question.

It's more like he takes a huge amount of people who claim to be legit Wing Chun and narrows them down, using genealogies and statements, to figure out who actually probably trained with who.

Yeah, but it's at best a partial or at worst a cherry-picked view of WC. It's like trying to talk about the entire NFL when you only know about the New York Jets.

People change what they call their style all the time. Like I've been saying, it's a nest of various styles that co-mingled for a few hundred years. One person's Snake, Crane, and Dragon is another's Wing Chun is another's Jun Fan is another's something or other.

You're misconstruing my point - I have posited that WC was a purposeful break from the animal styles. The framework, engine and strategy all changed. That's not a re-labeling of the same content.

20 pages of references. The notes alone go from pp 283-312.

4 pages of references of over 150 works cited, of which Leung Ting authored 1.

"high school project" was a big red flag. Hoo boy, I've done it now. Too much truth at once.

I didn't say any of those things. I think you are confusing your critics as they are proving to be numerous.

 

[Dirty Dog]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Despite a reminder posted in this thread, it has basically degenerated into something akin to a religious war. Therefore...
THREAD LOCKED PENDING STAFF REVIEW

Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog
MartialTalk Senior Moderator