Emin Boztepe vs. William Cheung
joseph.j.preiser
I am having one of my students post this for me while I await my netnews
account, however, my name and e-mail are at the bottom. The topic of the
fight between Emin Boztepe and William Cheung always seems to spark much
controversy and intense emotion. I'm afraid this is a rather lengthy
reply, but I cut it as much as my conscience would allow.
>>khc...@rigel.tamu.edu (Bruce as my Shepherd) says:
>>Then there's Leung Ting's Wing Tsun. Has anybody seen the footage where one of
>>his top students ambushes William Cheung and drops him.
>cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty) replies:
>Yes. No one seems to ever mention that William was walking away at the time,
>refusing to fight the guy until after the seminar was over. Emin had called
>William over smack in the middle of the seminar, yelled and cursed him,
>then challenged him. William asked Emin's name and affiliation, and said
>he'd be glad to, but after the seminar. Emin yells no, he wants to fight
>now. Cheung says no, and starts to walk away to get the seminar organizer's
>attention, when Emin tackles him from behind.
The first questions that should pop to mind are:
Was <cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty)> there when the fight took place?
And if so, did he see Emin Boztepe tackle William Cheung from behind
with his own eyes? I would hope that before people make such damning
accusations they would make an effort to be sure that their statements
are fact and not hearsay. This version of the story has been circulated
by William Cheung's side of the controversy, but few in this country
have heard Emin Boztepe's side.
I am a Wing Tsun instructor in Illinois, and although I will try to be
objective, my opinions no doubt reflect this fact. I know many of the
people involved on the Wing Tsun side of this issue, including Emin
Boztepe and Grandmaster Leung Ting. I know Emin Boztepe personally as
well as professionally, and I have always found Emin to be a man of
unimpeachable honor, integrity, and loyalty. If necessary, he will
unhesitatingly put his life on the line to fight for a friend or a
principle he holds important in his heart. He has done so many times,
and has bullet and knife scars to show for it. People pay to go see
Stallone and Seagal do that in the movies, but they are shocked when
they hear of it in real life. We live in an age of cynicism, when few
are willing to stand up for anything or anyone and many would like us
to believe that it is even wrong to do so! Personally, I am proud to
call such a man my friend, and I don't know anyone who really knows Emin
who feels differently.
I do not know William Cheung, and cannot speak as to what his character
is like; therefore, I will try to limit what I say about William
Cheung to that which is a matter of public record or which I have heard
personal testimony of from principles involved in the events which
transpired.
Events prior to the fight are mostly a matter of open record in the
martial arts press. Cheung for many years had been claiming to be the
one true Grandmaster of Wing Chun and the world's deadliest fighter.
He repeatedly issued open challenges in the press, offering to fight
anyone, any time, any place. Cheung insulted the rest of the WT/WC/VT
family as well as Grandmaster Yip Man, by claiming that Grandmaster
Yip Man cheated all of his thousands of students except Cheung, teaching
the rest fake, inferior technique. He called Grandmaster Yip Man a drug
addict as well! Shortly before the fight between William Cheung and Emin
Boztepe, two students of Cheung's attended one of Grandmaster Leung
Ting's seminars and challenged Grandmaster Leung Ting. They were told
that they must first cross hands with one of his students, according to
tradition. The WT student who was then matched with them beat up both of
the challengers. This is just a brief summary of the preliminary
conflict, but suffice it to say that the whole mess had been building for
about ten years when the encounter between Emin and William Cheung finally
occurred.
Other Grandmasters and Masters of WT/WC/VT tried at first to ignore
William Cheung and later tried to deal with Cheung diplomatically, but
by the time of the fight, the WT/WC/VT world pretty much all agreed
that someone needed to openly challenge him and settle the matter.
Years afterwards, when Emin gave a demonstration at the Long Beach
Internationals, Linda Lee came up to Emin and hugged him with tears in
her eyes, thanking him for what he did because of all the lies she felt
that Cheung had told about her late husband, Bruce Lee.
At Cheung's seminar, Emin confronted Cheung with a copy of the British
magazine Combat, in which Cheung's latest open challenge was printed.
He told Cheung that he was there to accept the open challenge. I have
seen two different photographs of this scene published in the martial
arts press. In one, Emin is holding up an open copy of Combat magazine
as the two men face each other from a distance of about ten feet. In
the other photo, the two men are also facing each other from about the
same distance, but no magazine is seen. In both photos, other people
are seen around the middle where Cheung and Emin stand. The
spectators look somewhat scared and Emin Boztepe and William Cheung
look like they are about ready to break into a fight. Both Emin and
Cheung agree that at this point Cheung said he would fight AFTER the
seminar. I asked Emin why he would not honor this seemingly reasonable
request, and he replied that he believed Cheung would not fight ever
unless he was not allowed time to back out. Emin said at this point
he reminded Cheung that his standing challenge said any time, any place.
Emin says he counted to ten (I don't know whether this was aloud)
and then attacked Cheung. William Cheung (and others who were not even
there!) claim that Cheung was attacked from behind. I asked Emin, and
Emin told me this was not true. In fact, Emin is extremely angry that
people would make such an assertion which questions his honor and
integrity. To put it bluntly, Emin has publicly said that people should
have the guts to say that to his face, rather than attack him from behind
his back, especially since that is behavior they claim to abhor (and yes,
Emin put that more colorfully!).
When my Si-Fu, Robert Jacquet, then head of the American branch of
Grandmaster Leung Ting's International Wing Tsun Martial Art Association
(IWTMAA) received a copy of the video, he sent it to Inside Kung Fu
Magazine, in an effort to quell some of the rumors which were flying
around about the event. They called William Cheung in Australia and
told him that they had the video. Cheung flew to Los Angeles and viewed
the video at the Inside Kung Fu office. After viewing the video and
realizing for the first time that the initial clash of the fight was not
recorded, Cheung asserted for the first time that he was attacked from
behind. However, if one carefully analyzes the video, it can be seen
that in the initial frame, the two men are essentially face to face, so
either Cheung was not attacked from behind or he succeeded in turning
around.
So does all this mean Cheung was not attacked from behind? No, it means
that only those who personally witnessed the fight will ever know for
sure. Personally, I believe that Emin did not attack Cheung from behind,
but that will always be just an opinion. Here's another question
for you: If William Cheung was the one true Grandmaster of Wing Tsun/Wing
Chun/Ving Tsun and the deadliest fighter in the world, should anyone have
been even been able to jump him unaware from behind, especially after
announcing that they were there to challenge him?
>>The guy's name is
>>Emin Boztepe (sp?) a real mean Sob.
>Or the fact that Emin was a wrestler, sometime student in WT.
At the time of the fight, approximately 6 or 7 years ago, Emin had been
practicing WT for about 6 or 7 years (he started in 1980), an average
of six hours a day. He was a second or third level instructor in WT
(he is now a fourth level instructor). Yes, Emin had also studied
other martial arts, including Turkish wrestling, but his primary art
was and remains WT. The techniques he is seen using on the video are
primarily well known, basic WT techniques applied in an unorthodox
but not necessarily uncommon manner. Modern Wing Tsun includes the
ability to fight at any range, including ground fighting, though some
students (and instructors!) of other versions of WC/VT may never have
seen this aspect of training. And yes, Emin can be very rough when
need be. I have seen many martial artists in my seventeen years in
martial arts, but I have never seen anyone better, other than
Grandmaster Leung Ting himself. Emin is however a very pleasant
person to know...he is equally at home in a fight or an art museum.
>>The WT organization is quite large, mainly
>>based in Europe. WT is seems very soft compared to VT and WC. But still, it
>Funny. I've seem Leung Ting spell his as Ving Tsun and Wing Tsun.
>That's because there is no difference in the names, they're just differen't
>ways of tranlating chinese sounds into english. Like the difference between
>Sao and Sau. What's differen't is the individuals teachnings.
This is true as far as it goes, Wing Tsun/Wing Chun/Ving Tsun are all
valid transliterations of the Chinese sounds. However, Grandmaster
Leung Ting has gone to the trouble of getting trademark rights in most
countries around the world for the spelling "Wing Tsun." Therefore,
anyone who uses this spelling is either associated with him directly or
they are probably illegally using the trademark. Grandmaster Leung Ting
is known for being the last closed-door disciple of the late Grandmaster
Yip Man, and the trademark assures WT students that they are indeed
receiving Wing Tsun knowledge received from Grandmaster Yip Man at the
end of his life, when his own understanding was at the greatest it would
ever be.
The reason Grandmaster Leung Ting occasionally uses the spelling
"Ving Tsun" is that this is the spelling preferred by Grandmaster Yip Man
and still in use by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association, the association
of all descendants of Grandmaster Yip Man's WT/WC/VT family. Grandmaster
Leung Ting sits on the board of the VTAA, as do most of the Grandmasters
and Masters of WT/WC/VT. Incidentally, William Cheung was long ago kicked
out of the VTAA, after all diplomatic ways of dealing with him had failed.
A letter from all of the top students of Grandmaster Yip Man and even
from Grandmaster Yip Man's sons was later published in most martial arts
magazines worldwide (including Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu) denying all
of William Cheung's claims point-by-point and saying that they were sorry
to have to admit that such a person was a member of the
Wing Chun/Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun clan.
>>The politics are getting ugly.
>Very ugly.
Actually, all this is ancient history now! William Cheung has toned down
his rhetoric and everyone seems to be relatively satisfied with that. As
for all the other branches of Grandmaster Yip Man's WT/WC/VT, almost
everyone else has always gotten along very well. Sure, sometimes they
argue a little about whose version is better, or how Grandmaster Yip Man
really intended a certain movement to be done, but afterwards they all
go out to dinner together. In fact, at Jeffrey Bolt's tournament in
Houston a couple years ago, the WT/WC/VT Grandmasters, Masters, and
students in attendance were all held up to the other styles as an example
of how their various branches should get along!
By the way, although Grandmaster Leung Ting's Wing Tsun is currently
most widespread in Europe, particularly Germany, Wing Tsun is
rapidly growing in this country. In fact, you may or may not be
pleased to discover that my Si-Fu, Robert Jacquet, last year asked
Emin Boztepe to take over as Chief Instructor of the American Wing Tsun
Organization (AWTO), the American branch of Grandmaster Leung Ting's
IWTMAA. Emin accepted and is working hard to build the AWTO in skill
and in size. He is also working simultaneously on a movie career,
having completed one part and currently about to begin another. So
although he is not yet as well known in America as he is in Europe,
you will be hearing much more of him. As for <khc...@rigel.tamu.edu
(Bruce as my Shepherd)>, you may be interested in knowing there is a
relatively high concentration of WT in Texas. Anyone wishing further
information about Emin or the AWTO is welcome to contact me.
Mike Adams
wing...@ihlpm.att.com
--
*************************************************************************
* Joe Preiser AT&T Bell Labs *
* j...@cbnewsd.att.com Naperville, IL USA *
*************************************************************************
PHI NGA HOANG
>
>
>I do not know William Cheung, and cannot speak as to what his character
>is like; therefore, I will try to limit what I say about William
>Cheung to that which is a matter of public record or which I have heard
>personal testimony of from principles involved in the events which
>transpired.
>Other Grandmasters and Masters of WT/WC/VT tried at first to ignore
>William Cheung and later tried to deal with Cheung diplomatically, but
>by the time of the fight, the WT/WC/VT world pretty much all agreed
>that someone needed to openly challenge him and settle the matter.
>Years afterwards, when Emin gave a demonstration at the Long Beach
>Internationals, Linda Lee came up to Emin and hugged him with tears in
>her eyes, thanking him for what he did because of all the lies she felt
>that Cheung had told about her late husband, Bruce Lee.
>
>
>Mike Adams
>wing...@ihlpm.att.com
>--
>*************************************************************************
>* Joe Preiser AT&T Bell Labs *
>* j...@cbnewsd.att.com Naperville, IL USA *
>*************************************************************************
Less than six months ago, I started to read an article in a martial arts
magazine written by William Cheung. I stopped after reading the first page
because it looked liked a lot of bullshit to make Cheung look good.
W. Cheung goes on to say how Bruce looked up to him and considered him the
best fighter...
I don't know if W. Cheung calmed down his rhetoric or not but he seems to
be full of it.
And that folks is my unbiased opinion.
Personally, I don't think W. Cheung could have beaten Bruce Lee anytime after
1970.
--
Phi
Marty
Mr. Adams, this post was very hard to respond to. I have friends in your
organization, and I wish not to offend them with my reponse. However,
your one sided, biased, and at some times double standard response could
not be treated lightly, nor ignored. At times I found myself laughing at
your examples and statements, that a minute before you claim is ok for
your group to do or have, yet wrong for William or his. Thoughout your
post, you take the view of your organization automatically being right,
which I would expect you to do. It is your organization, and pride is
important. However, to automatically cast your organization and the people
in it as some automatic "white knight" group is hardly appropriate, and at
somtimes in the reply, disgusting.
j...@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (joseph.j.preiser) for Mike Adams says:
>The first questions that should pop to mind are:
>Was <cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty)> there when the fight took place?
>And if so, did he see Emin Boztepe tackle William Cheung from behind
>with his own eyes? I would hope that before people make such damning
>accusations they would make an effort to be sure that their statements
>are fact and not hearsay. This version of the story has been circulated
>by William Cheung's side of the controversy, but few in this country
>have heard Emin Boztepe's side.
>
>I am a Wing Tsun instructor in Illinois, and although I will try to be
>objective, my opinions no doubt reflect this fact. I know many of the
>people involved on the Wing Tsun side of this issue, including Emin
>Boztepe and Grandmaster Leung Ting.
Mr. Adams......how is this any differen't? You were not there, and
neither was I (nor did I claim to be). We both know people involved,
including the main participants. From your lengthy response, you
obviously believe your organizations side, and I obviously believe mine.
So how does trying to discredit my opinion by saying I wasn't there and
am being biased to one side of the issue any differen't than your position?
>I know Emin Boztepe personally as
>well as professionally, and I have always found Emin to be a man of
>unimpeachable honor, integrity, and loyalty.
Mr. Adams, I'm sure everything you say is true of Emin. However, none of
it excuses him for how he acted. To interupt a seminar where people are
paying good money to attend is not excuseable. What would happen if someone
interupted a seminar by Wally Jay, or Chai Sirasute(sp?), Bruce Juchnick,
Masakki Hatsumi, or Bill Wallace? I'm sure neither them nor the other
participants of the seminar would look on it kindly. In fact, the same thing
happened just a little while before when Leung Ting was giving a seminar in
New York. He called up someone in our organization that was in the audience,
did a demonstration, and our person thought he was being setup, so he attacked.
Afterwords he was THOROUGHLY balled out by Grandmaster Cheung for doing so.
Your organization did not look kindly on the display either. So how is this
differnt? The only thing I can see it either your organization does not
follow or teach any standards of conduct OR this is again another prime example
of a double standard on your part.
>If necessary, he will
>unhesitatingly put his life on the line to fight for a friend or a
>principle he holds important in his heart. He has done so many times,
>and has bullet and knife scars to show for it. People pay to go see
>Stallone and Seagal do that in the movies, but they are shocked when
>they hear of it in real life. We live in an age of cynicism, when few
>are willing to stand up for anything or anyone and many would like us
>to believe that it is even wrong to do so! Personally, I am proud to
>call such a man my friend, and I don't know anyone who really knows Emin
>who feels differently.
This personal U-Rah-Rah of Emin's personal quality has nothing to do with
the matter Mr. Adams. I could go on all day about the same thing with
William. It would prove nothing. Stick to the facts.
>I do not know William Cheung, and cannot speak as to what his character
>is like;
Yet you are so ready to follow ideas that condemn him. Without even meeting
the man? Incredible. I wouldn't even try and condemn Emin as a person
without meeting him, even if my organization were to say I was banned for not
following their views on his character. But wait you say? Didn't I just
get done condemning Emin? For his conduct at the seminar Mr. Adams. Not
him as a person. There is a difference.
>therefore, I will try to limit what I say about William
>Cheung to that which is a matter of public record or which I have heard
>personal testimony of from principles involved in the events which
>transpired.
Public record Mr. Adams? Whose? Or your organization's interpretations of
public record? Perhaps that would be more correct? You try and present
yourself as merely presenting the facts. However you leave out that your
"facts" are merely the "principles involved" and your own interpretations of
the "facts".
>Events prior to the fight are mostly a matter of open record in the
>martial arts press. Cheung for many years had been claiming to be the
>one true Grandmaster of Wing Chun and the world's deadliest fighter.
>He repeatedly issued open challenges in the press, offering to fight
>anyone, any time, any place.
>Cheung insulted the rest of the WT/WC/VT
>family as well as Grandmaster Yip Man, by claiming that Grandmaster
>Yip Man cheated all of his thousands of students except Cheung, teaching
>the rest fake, inferior technique.
Mr. Adams, all William said was simply that he had learned something different
from Yip Man, that he considers the "original Wing Chun". He did not rub it
in anyone's face, nor did he say "I'm great, you suck, I dare you to prove
different." He said that if anyone wishes to dispute the existance of Classical
Wing Chun, they were free to come to Australia any time and he would show them.
Now whether you and the rest of your organization choose to view this as a
challenge is up to you. But please don't distort the facts. It is in
print. I blame Bey Logan too, for presenting this as a challenge when Cheung's
response to your organization's letter was first published.
>He called Grandmaster Yip Man a drug
>addict as well!
He most certainly did not. Your statement is the equivalent of calling my
college TA an alcoholic because he goes to a bar every Friday night.
What Cheung did say was that Yip Man used Opium. Now if you learned about
Chinese history (which I have no idea if you have), Opium usage was very
common among the older generation in Hong Kong and mainland China. It
was looked upon by the "older generation" much the same way cigarette smokers
view smoking here. Now whether the government held the same viewpoint is
besides the point. The fact remains that Yip Man and many other Gung Fu
masters at the time smoked opium recreationaly, and viewed it the same way
cigarette smokers view thier right to light up a cigarette here. Now
what William did was say how he thought it was wrong that Yip Man smoked
Opium because it was unhealthy, and almost contradictory to the goals of
Gung Fu. This is in no way calling him "a drug addict" as you put it, and
is no differen't than the current anti-smoking movement in the US. I wasn't
aware that smokers were being called "druggies" and "drug addicts" either.
>Shortly before the fight between William Cheung and Emin
>Boztepe, two students of Cheung's attended one of Grandmaster Leung
>Ting's seminars and challenged Grandmaster Leung Ting. They were told
>that they must first cross hands with one of his students, according to
>tradition. The WT student who was then matched with them beat up both of
>the challengers. This is just a brief summary of the preliminary
>conflict, but suffice it to say that the whole mess had been building for
>about ten years when the encounter between Emin and William Cheung finally
>occurred.
Obviously a difference of view here. As I said earlier, Leung Ting had just
got done chastising William at a seminar in New York. He then needed a
volunteer for the demonstration. He happened to call up a person from our
organization, said he was going to do one thing and then changed it to
another. Now with the change and the fact that Leung Ting had just got done
criticizing William, the person from our organization engaged with Leung Ting.
The fight stopped when Leung Ting's bodygaurds came in.
Now obviously our views are on totally different sides of the spectrum. Which
makes this whole thing moot.
The fact remains though that the person from our organization was balled out
and reprimanded PERSONALLY by William Cheung for behaving that way and
interupting the seminar.
Was Emin? From the way your organization touted the whole thing, obviously
not.
>Other Grandmasters and Masters of WT/WC/VT tried at first to ignore
>William Cheung and later tried to deal with Cheung diplomatically, but
>by the time of the fight, the WT/WC/VT world pretty much all agreed
>that someone needed to openly challenge him and settle the matter.
Heh. More personal opinion Mr. Adam. There were those who came to
see if Cheung was telling the truth about a "Classical" from of Wing Chun.
Some didn't agree and some did. But you seem to leave out this fact.
And all did NOT agree that something needed to be done. It was mainly
the "so called" big shots of Wing Chun,
Leung Ting, Wong Shun Leung, Wang Kiu, Lok Yiu, and Tsui Sheung Tin, and
their affiliates. There were plenty that wanted no part in the matter,
or had gone to see Cheung for themselves and accepted him.
>Years afterwards, when Emin gave a demonstration at the Long Beach
>Internationals, Linda Lee came up to Emin and hugged him with tears in
>her eyes, thanking him for what he did because of all the lies she felt
>that Cheung had told about her late husband, Bruce Lee.
Thanks for another whopper of a story. But let's approach this rationaly,
shall we? Let's bring out the fact that Linda has hardly proved herself
as a total authority on Bruce's life. In her so called "biographies" on
Bruce there have been plenty of items that she swore as fact, and later
were dissproven by people who who knew Bruce personally and were at some
of these events. Jessie Glover is a good example. I can bring out others.
Linda may have been very close to Bruce and shared alot things, but this
doesn't mean she was with him every second of the day, or for every day
of his life.
Let's also bring out the fact that William talked about Bruce's life in
Hong Kong, long before he came to the US and twice as long before he
became close with Linda. I wasn't aware that Linda was in Hong Kong from
1940-59. She must have gone through childhood with him too then I suppose?
That must be what gives her the credentials to call whatever went on then
lies? Sorry, but it just doesn't hold up. Either way, this heart felt story
with Linda has nothing to do with what went on. I simply tries to add more
credence and sympathy to your viewpoint.
>At Cheung's seminar, Emin confronted Cheung with a copy of the British
>magazine Combat, in which Cheung's latest open challenge was printed.
Again, another of your "opinions" not facts. If your organization chose
to view it as this because the editor of Combat, Bey Logan, chose to
portray it this way, that does not make it fact. It simply said, and I
quote "if they dispute the existence of traditioal wing chun, they are always
welcome to come and I will show them."
Not to mention that Emin confronted Cheung in the middle of a seminar,
as was previously stated.
>He told Cheung that he was there to accept the open challenge. I have
>seen two different photographs of this scene published in the martial
>arts press. In one, Emin is holding up an open copy of Combat magazine
>as the two men face each other from a distance of about ten feet. In
>the other photo, the two men are also facing each other from about the
>same distance, but no magazine is seen. In both photos, other people
>are seen around the middle where Cheung and Emin stand. The
>spectators look somewhat scared and Emin Boztepe and William Cheung
>look like they are about ready to break into a fight. Both Emin and
>Cheung agree that at this point Cheung said he would fight AFTER the
>seminar. I asked Emin why he would not honor this seemingly reasonable
>request, and he replied that he believed Cheung would not fight ever
>unless he was not allowed time to back out.
So this excuses Emin from his conduct? It makes his conduct right because
he thought Cheung would back out? I see, so because he thought that, it
must be true. So it was alright then.
>Emin said at this point
>he reminded Cheung that his standing challenge said any time, any place.
>Emin says he counted to ten (I don't know whether this was aloud)
>and then attacked Cheung.
All of which was in German, Mr. Adams. A language which is not William's
native language, and which he would hardly speak fluently except for maybe
a few basic words like "Yes, no, and please." Emin proceded to yell the
reminder and started couting....all in German.
I could see this as a possible slip up on Emin's part since he was obviously
hyped up, that he automatically spoke in his native tounge (instead of the
English he used for the rest of the challenge).
By that time, Cheung had turned around to get the organizer's (Augustinos Yu)
attention.
>William Cheung (and others who were not even
>there!) claim that Cheung was attacked from behind. I asked Emin, and
>Emin told me this was not true. In fact, Emin is extremely angry that
>people would make such an assertion which questions his honor and
>integrity. To put it bluntly, Emin has publicly said that people should
>have the guts to say that to his face, rather than attack him from behind
>his back, especially since that is behavior they claim to abhor (and yes,
>Emin put that more colorfully!).
Well gee, that's funny. Because even the organizer, and half the people
that WERE there claim it was from behind. They also claim that people from
your organization started surrounding Cheung.
Either way, I find you saying this, most humorous and contradictory in nature.
You just got done saying that people who were not even there were claiming
that he was attacked from behind. How is this any different than you "who
were not even there" claiming that it was not from behind?
Oh, I see....because you talked to Emin, the main participant, himself. And
of course this makes your version the true(tm) one. And of course that makes
the people who talked to William, the other main participant, wrong. Again
I ask, how is this any differen't?
>When my Si-Fu, Robert Jacquet, then head of the American branch of
>Grandmaster Leung Ting's International Wing Tsun Martial Art Association
>(IWTMAA) received a copy of the video, he sent it to Inside Kung Fu
>Magazine, in an effort to quell some of the rumors which were flying
>around about the event. They called William Cheung in Australia and
>told him that they had the video. Cheung flew to Los Angeles and viewed
>the video at the Inside Kung Fu office. After viewing the video and
>realizing for the first time that the initial clash of the fight was not
>recorded, Cheung asserted for the first time that he was attacked from
>behind. However, if one carefully analyzes the video, it can be seen
>that in the initial frame, the two men are essentially face to face, so
>either Cheung was not attacked from behind or he succeeded in turning
>around.
Succeeded in turning around is correct. The videos were taken
AFTER the fight had allready started. As is noted, the people in your
organization just "happened" to have video cameras and cameras with.
They also just "happened" to count to a certain ammount of time at which
time Emin got up and everyone scooted out VERY quickly.
>So does all this mean Cheung was not attacked from behind? No, it means
>that only those who personally witnessed the fight will ever know for
>sure. Personally, I believe that Emin did not attack Cheung from behind,
>but that will always be just an opinion. Here's another question
>for you: If William Cheung was the one true Grandmaster of Wing Tsun/Wing
>Chun/Ving Tsun and the deadliest fighter in the world, should anyone have
>been even been able to jump him unaware from behind, especially after
>announcing that they were there to challenge him?
Ahhh....now we reached the next doublestandard. You seem to want to take
into account what Emin was thinking, to justify his actions. You seem
to ignore the fact that William is a living, breathing, human being with
thoughts of his own. Surely what he was thinking should be allowed to
justify his own actions too, shouldn't it? No? Well let's go over it
anyways......
Imagine now, if you will......in fact we'll use you in his position....
Here's Mr. Adams giving a seminar in West Germany. Mr. Adams has been
traveling non stop, giving seminars in four other countries that don't
use English or Cantonese as a base language. He's tired, and the problems
in the Wing Chun community are on his mind. Mr. Adams is giving the seminar,
when someone raises their hand as if you him a question. Mr. Adams walks over.
The person stands up, swinging an issue of Combat magazine around in the air.
You recognize it as the one that Bey Logan printed your response to the Ving
Tsun organization in, and promoted it as a challenge. Better be on gaurd.
Obviously this guy is from the Ving Tsun organization, and there may be others
here with him. What's that he's saying? He doesn't believe I had anything to
do with Bruce Lee, and he want's to challenge me? Ok. I'm not opposed to
an organized challenge.
Mr. Adam's then says to the person "Can you tell me
your name, and where your come from, and we will do it after the class."
To which the person replies to you "No, I just want to fight you now!".
No, that would be wrong to interupt the seminar. These people paid good money
for this, and it would be wrong to take their time with this or interupt the
flow of the seminar. I'll just tell him no, and get Augustinous Yu's attention.
He is sponsering this, and they should take care of security for now.
Mr. Adams then procedes to tell the person "No, you're not fighting me now."
and turns around around you get Yu's attention, when suddenly faced with
the fact that about seven people have surrounded him and alot of German is
being yelled in the background.
Uh-oh. This is obviously a setup. Better be carefull with them, they
may be carrying weapons. WHAM!
At this point, Mr. Adams is jumped on from behind and a wrestling melee starts.
A few punches are thrown at him, most of which are deflected. Suddenly the
surounding people whip out what they were hiding, which turns out not to
be weapons, but conviently....Video Camera's!
Uh-Oh. This really was a setup. They have cameras, which means they were
prepared, which means they still could be prepared with weapons if something
goes wrong. Better just play the defensive, and not expose my back to
them either, just in case. Obviously they just came to take pictures of me
grappling, but I better be carefull either way.
At which point Mr. Adams continues to wrestle/deflect the attacker, when
suddenly a signal is called aloud and all present with cameras, including the
attacker, get up to gather their things and run out.
Mr. Adams get's up, starts to apologize to the people at the seminar, and is
immediately surrounded by loud applause and standing ovation for his conduct
and display of temperment.
---------------
And that's what William Cheung was thinking. Wait a minute, you say Mr. Adams.
You weren't there Marty, so how would you know? Well Mr. Adams, I know from
the same relative sources that you claim to know from. So if you expect
people on here to accept what you say seriously, then they must do the same
with me. We are no differen't in sources except that we are on opposite sides
of the spectrum.
>At the time of the fight, approximately 6 or 7 years ago, Emin had been
>practicing WT for about 6 or 7 years (he started in 1980), an average
>of six hours a day. He was a second or third level instructor in WT
>(he is now a fourth level instructor). Yes, Emin had also studied
>other martial arts, including Turkish wrestling, but his primary art
>was and remains WT. The techniques he is seen using on the video are
>primarily well known, basic WT techniques applied in an unorthodox
>but not necessarily uncommon manner.
What he was doing was wrestling and grappling, plain and simple. We'll
just have to chalk this up to difference of opinion.
>Modern Wing Tsun includes the
>ability to fight at any range, including ground fighting,
As any good Wing Chun should.
>though some
>students (and instructors!) of other versions of WC/VT may never have
>seen this aspect of training.
Yes, some haven't. While others have....
>And yes, Emin can be very rough when
>need be. I have seen many martial artists in my seventeen years in
>martial arts, but I have never seen anyone better, other than
>Grandmaster Leung Ting himself.
Touch hands with William Cheung or Blaine Collins once. Or a host of other
people. This is not to berate Emin, but he is certainly not the only person
that plays hard or has had to fight for their lives more than once.
>Emin is however a very pleasant
>person to know...he is equally at home in a fight or an art museum.
Great. But this has nothing to do with the subject. You want to do an
Emin profile for the newsgroup, then by all means go ahead. But in a differen't
post. It has no place in this discussion, just like if I were to suddenly do
a William Cheung profile.
>This is true as far as it goes, Wing Tsun/Wing Chun/Ving Tsun are all
>valid transliterations of the Chinese sounds. However, Grandmaster
>Leung Ting has gone to the trouble of getting trademark rights in most
>countries around the world for the spelling "Wing Tsun."
Let me point out here too folks, another irony or contradiction. Mr. Adams
freely quotes Leung Ting with the title Grandmaster, yet cuts down William
for claiming that he is one. There are also plenty of people in the Ving Tsun
organization and outside of it, that dispute Leung Ting's claim, and do not
think much of his Gung Fu. Now mind you, these are also the same people who
were attacking William.
>Therefore,
>anyone who uses this spelling is either associated with him directly or
>they are probably illegally using the trademark.
Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't aware of his getting Wing Tsun
trademarked.
>Grandmaster Leung Ting
>is known for being the last closed-door disciple of the late Grandmaster
>Yip Man, and the trademark assures WT students that they are indeed
>receiving Wing Tsun knowledge received from Grandmaster Yip Man at the
>end of his life, when his own understanding was at the greatest it would
>ever be.
Of course, because your organization says so it's obviously true. And William
and his organization are obviously lying about it's credentials. Once
again, if you expect people to take you seriously by using that reasoning, you
must also expect them to give us the same courtesy.
I am in no way saying Leung Ting is wrong, or a fraud. So don't missquote
me or get me wrong. I am simply saying...how should I say it...."What's good
for the goose is good for the gander".
>The reason Grandmaster Leung Ting occasionally uses the spelling
>"Ving Tsun" is that this is the spelling preferred by Grandmaster Yip Man
>and still in use by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association, the association
>of all descendants of Grandmaster Yip Man's WT/WC/VT family. Grandmaster
>Leung Ting sits on the board of the VTAA, as do most of the Grandmasters
>and Masters of WT/WC/VT.
>Incidentally, William Cheung was long ago kicked
>out of the VTAA,
Difference of opinion...equivalent to a boss firing an employee while the
employee is saying that they quit.
>after all diplomatic ways of dealing with him had failed.
I will agree with this, but substitute the word "him" with "between everyone".
>A letter from all of the top students of Grandmaster Yip Man and even
>from Grandmaster Yip Man's sons was later published in most martial arts
>magazines worldwide (including Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu) denying all
>of William Cheung's claims point-by-point and saying that they were sorry
>to have to admit that such a person was a member of the
>Wing Chun/Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun clan.
Ah yes....this would be the one he responded to "point-by-point" when you
guys and Bey Logan accused him of putting forth a challenge. The one
that started the whole thing to a heat in the first place.
And don't try to impress people by saying "even from Grandmaster Yip Man's
sons". While they may be talented Wing Chun practitioners, there are those
who know they have no authority to ride on their father's credentials.
Speaking of which, you seemed to bring up the fact about Linda being upset
at William supposedly. Why don't you mention the fact that Bruce and her
were suing a Hong Kong magazine AND Yip Chun for publishing an account
of Bruce's childhood in Hong Kong that was totally false and full of lies?
Oh I get it, because then that wouldn't get you sympathy for your cause(tm),
right?
>>>The politics are getting ugly.
>
>>Very ugly.
>
>Actually, all this is ancient history now!
Could have fooled me. The content of your post surely does not show this.
>William Cheung has toned down his rhetoric
As have the other people.
>and everyone seems to be relatively satisfied with that. As
>for all the other branches of Grandmaster Yip Man's WT/WC/VT, almost
>everyone else has always gotten along very well.
And the flowers sprouted, the birds sang, and rainbows appeared over the
valley. Not.
While much of the politics have toned down, all the other branches of Yip
Man's WC familly do not get along as well as Mr. Adams would lead you to
believe.
>Sure, sometimes they
>argue a little about whose version is better, or how Grandmaster Yip Man
>really intended a certain movement to be done,
Talk about putting it mildly.
>but afterwards they all
>go out to dinner together. In fact, at Jeffrey Bolt's tournament in
>Houston a couple years ago, the WT/WC/VT Grandmasters, Masters, and
>students in attendance were all held up to the other styles as an example
>of how their various branches should get along!
Which is how it should be.
>By the way, although Grandmaster Leung Ting's Wing Tsun is currently
>most widespread in Europe, particularly Germany, Wing Tsun is
>rapidly growing in this country. In fact, you may or may not be
>pleased to discover that my Si-Fu, Robert Jacquet, last year asked
>Emin Boztepe to take over as Chief Instructor of the American Wing Tsun
>Organization (AWTO), the American branch of Grandmaster Leung Ting's
>IWTMAA. Emin accepted and is working hard to build the AWTO in skill
>and in size. He is also working simultaneously on a movie career,
>having completed one part and currently about to begin another. So
>although he is not yet as well known in America as he is in Europe,
>you will be hearing much more of him.
Geeze.......If I would have known you were going to turn this discussion into
a plug for Emin and your organization I would have gotten something together
myself. Maybe even sold commercial space to Taco Bell or someone to advertise
too.
>As for <khc...@rigel.tamu.edu
>(Bruce as my Shepherd)>, you may be interested in knowing there is a
>relatively high concentration of WT in Texas. Anyone wishing further
>information about Emin or the AWTO is welcome to contact me.
And for anyone interested in learning Wing Chun as taught to William Cheung
by Yip Man, you can contact me at the mailing address listed at the end of
this post. Our organization is the World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association. It
is currently throughout the world, and rapidly growing in the US.
Headquarters for the US is in Las Vegas, however the main Kwoon in the midwest
is in Wisconsin.
Pleasure talking to you Mr. Adams.
Marty
Do
WWCKFA
--
cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu What do you care what other people think !?
cir...@convex.csd.uwm.edu Clearly the rantings of a madman...
"..I Believe that entropy will eventually come to..HEY where'd everybody go?"
Marty
csci...@cl2.cl.uh.edu (PHI NGA HOANG) says:
>Less than six months ago, I started to read an article in a martial arts
>magazine written by William Cheung. I stopped after reading the first page
>because it looked liked a lot of bullshit to make Cheung look good.
Mr. Phi, if you bothered to fully read the article, you'd see it was a
reprint from a LONG time ago in which people SPECIFICALLY sought out
William about his relationship with Bruce.
>W. Cheung goes on to say how Bruce looked up to him and considered him the
>best fighter...
No, but again, if you bothered to fully read the article it says, and I
quote:
"Wong Shun Leung, a Yip student senior to both Cheung and Lee, remembers
that about a month before his death Bruce Lee asked, 'Leung, do you think
now I can defeat Ah Hing (Cheung)?'".
>I don't know if W. Cheung calmed down his rhetoric or not but he seems to
>be full of it.
Mr. Phi, if anything seems to be full of it, it seems to be your cup. Empty
it, as it was overflowing and making a mess long ago.
Bruce Lee looking up to William Cheung in this manner is very COMMON
knowlege. William certainly wasn't the first to present this. In fact, the
first was Linda Lee in her biography "Bruce Lee, the man only I knew". Then
there was Jessie Glover in his book Bruce Lee: Between Wing Chun and Jeet Kune
Do. And then there's Dan Inosanto. And then there's Ted Wong. And then....
>Personally, I don't think W. Cheung could have beaten Bruce Lee anytime after
>1970.
And that of course is after seeing Bruce Lee fight in person, as well as
William Cheung, right? Geeze, you must have been very fortunate to see
Bruce fight in person. Oh, don't tell me.....you just happened to watch
Enter The Dragon again for the 900th time last night.....that must be it.
>And that folks is my unbiased opinion.
That's very funny Mr. Phi. You must be a comedian in your spare time too?
>--
>Phi
Marty
Do
And on a side note, Bruce did call William four days before he died. And
the subject you presented did come up, when Bruce said, and I quote:
"AhHing, as soon as I finish filming this Game of Death, I'm going to take
a long, long vacation. And I'm going to come by and visit you there in
Australia. And you'd better be ready!"
Of course if you bothered to read the article, you would have seen this too.
Carefull people, wet floor around here.......
PHI NGA HOANG
>
>
>csci...@cl2.cl.uh.edu (PHI NGA HOANG) says:
>
>>Less than six months ago, I started to read an article in a martial arts
>>magazine written by William Cheung. I stopped after reading the first page
>>because it looked liked a lot of bullshit to make Cheung look good.
>
>Mr. Phi, if you bothered to fully read the article, you'd see it was a
>reprint from a LONG time ago in which people SPECIFICALLY sought out
>William about his relationship with Bruce.
>
>>W. Cheung goes on to say how Bruce looked up to him and considered him the
>>best fighter...
>
>No, but again, if you bothered to fully read the article it says, and I
>quote:
>
>
>That's very funny Mr. Phi. You must be a comedian in your spare time too?
>
>
>>--
>>Phi
>
>
>Marty
>
>Do
>
You seem to take my quote out of context. I said that it was my unbiased
opinion before I stated "Personally,.." which means my personal opinion.
I am not in the Ving Tsun or William Cheung organiza(nor am I a
wing chun practitioner) so I have no political involvement in this.
Anyway, who cares!
You guys fight it out yourselves.
--
Phi
Stephen...@transarc.com
> Mr. Adams, I'm sure everything you say is true of Emin. However, none of
> it excuses him for how he acted. To interupt a seminar where people are
> paying good money to attend is not excuseable. What would happen if someone
> interupted a seminar by Wally Jay, or Chai Sirasute(sp?), Bruce Juchnick,
> Masakki Hatsumi, or Bill Wallace?
What's the line about "walking the walk"? If someone were to
claim "Any time, any where", one might think that they should be
prepared for the inconvenient situations that ensue.
Wasn't there a recent message about Wong Jack Man (sp?)
confronting Bruce Lee with a challenge, and when Lee wanted to fight
immediately, Wong started waffling and insisting on the proper protocol?
Stephen Chan ch...@transarc.com |Transarc Corporation
Facilities Weeny (412)338-6996 |707 Grant St
|Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Robert Gillespie
The encounter between Bruce and Wong is not an exact parallel.
Wong had already followed protocol in his issuance of the challenge, the
"protocol" he waffled over was the choice of techniques and legal targets in
the fight.
I was not aware that Cheung's willingness to cross arms with people doubting
the effectiveness of his version of Wing Chun constituted an open invitation
to brawling in public, just a willingness to accept the terms of the
challenger in setting the time and place.
This is more analogous to scheduling a competition and indicating a
willingness to compete with anybody, than it is an invitation to street
fight at any instant.
Furthermore, I was not aware that Cheung's willingness to fight was at issue.
Having a sense of decorum in even the strongest martial challenge is very
common in the Chinese martial arts. Remember, we are talking martial art not
street fighting. If Cheung was willing to negotiate a contest under terms
acceptable to Botzepe this IMHO constituted a fair upholding of Cheung's
statement of willingness to spar.
Lastly, I do not know if saying that William Cheung lacks some of Bruce Lee's
fiery temperment should be construed as a criticism. Bruce was impatient with
decorum and known to fight at the drop of a hat. William Cheung has a well
documented history of successes in fights and doubtless does not feel an
overwhelming need to prove himself to doubters. I had always thought that
restraint was one of the traits of a seasoned martial artist.
rg
Stephen...@transarc.com
> The encounter between Bruce and Wong is not an exact parallel.
Fair enough.
> I was not aware that Cheung's willingness to cross arms with people doubting
> the effectiveness of his version of Wing Chun constituted an open invitation
> to brawling in public, just a willingness to accept the terms of the
> challenger in setting the time and place.
I get the impression that Cheung's position was somewhat more
abrasive than "My style is effective, and I am willing to prove it."
My feeling is that if you come across extremely abrasive, and
stomp over other people's sensibilities, then you ought to expect that
things will get ugly. This would be especially ugly among people who
spend a significant portion of their waking hours learning how to pop
each other upside the head.
gill...@ucs.orst.edu (Robert Gillespie) writes:
> Lastly, I do not know if saying that William Cheung lacks some of Bruce Lee's
> fiery temperment should be construed as a criticism. Bruce was impatient with
Sorry, my analogy was poorly phrased. I wasn't trying to
contrast Cheung with Lee, I meant to compare Lee to Boztepe. They were
both extremely insulted by their challenger, and wanted to fight
immediately, while their opponents were less than enthusiastic.
In My Not So Humble Opinion, one can't condemn the behavior
of one without condemning the behavior of both.
> decorum and known to fight at the drop of a hat. William Cheung has a well
> documented history of successes in fights and doubtless does not feel an
> overwhelming need to prove himself to doubters. I had always thought that
> restraint was one of the traits of a seasoned martial artist.
I guess we all have to decide when and where to apply decorum
and restraint. For example, one might apply some decorum when making
claims which may insult their kung-fu brothers or somehow tarnish the
memory of your sifu.
Robert Gillespie
<snip>
:
> I get the impression that Cheung's position was somewhat more
>abrasive than "My style is effective, and I am willing to prove it."
> My feeling is that if you come across extremely abrasive, and
>stomp over other people's sensibilities, then you ought to expect that
>things will get ugly. This would be especially ugly among people who
>spend a significant portion of their waking hours learning how to pop
>each other upside the head.
I have a lot of respect for William Cheung, but I am not afiliated with his
kung fu family. I have a lot of respect for most serious Wing Chun
practitioners, regardless of their particular school.
My approach to the subject was not as a William Cheung supporter, but as
someone who has seen a *lot* of damage to the Wing Chun community by
these issues being handled undiplomatically.
If I had felt like you were unfairly bashing Emin Botzepe, I would have
responded in kind.
I am curious that you would seem to interpret my moderate perspective as
being fervently pro-Cheung, I tend to take this as an indication that you are
solely interested in the controversy and not the resolution, and also that
your criticisms in this regard are solely rhetorical in nature.
I have no doubt that William Chueng has offended the sensibilities of
other Wing Chun practitioners in the past. I also have no doubt that
he has been similarly offended by others. To me what is most important is
that he shows a willingness to live amicably in the present.
> Sorry, my analogy was poorly phrased. I wasn't trying to
>contrast Cheung with Lee, I meant to compare Lee to Boztepe. They were
>both extremely insulted by their challenger, and wanted to fight
>immediately, while their opponents were less than enthusiastic.
Okay.
> In My Not So Humble Opinion, one can't condemn the behavior
>of one without condemning the behavior of both.
Both Bruce Lee and Emin Botzepe, or Botzepe and Cheung?
> I guess we all have to decide when and where to apply decorum
>and restraint. For example, one might apply some decorum when making
>claims which may insult their kung-fu brothers or somehow tarnish the
>memory of your sifu.
I suspect the insult was mutual, and the issue of who was really right in
a larger sense is not only moot, but past.
>
>Stephen Chan ch...@transarc.com |Transarc Corporation
>Facilities Weeny (412)338-6996 |707 Grant St
> |Pittsburgh, PA 15219
I have often thought that your posts did a good job of deflating the
pomposity of others, and gently suggest a bit of self-administration on your
part.
rg
Bill Dowding
>>W. Cheung goes on to say how Bruce looked up to him and considered him the
>>best fighter...
Not according to my info. Bruce did, however, always inquire who was better,
bruce or william. (ask Wong shun leung, i mean.) Actually, bruce considered
Wong Shun Leung the best fighter. (By the by, Wong Shun Leung's sister lives
here in oz, in Ingleburn, a suburb of sydney, new south wales. She knew bruce
since she was little. I don't know here, but my sifu knows her well (they were
married).
>No, but again, if you bothered to fully read the article it says, and I
>quote:
> "Wong Shun Leung, a Yip student senior to both Cheung and Lee, remembers
> that about a month before his death Bruce Lee asked, 'Leung, do you think
> now I can defeat Ah Hing (Cheung)?'".
Do you know what he answered?
>Bruce Lee looking up to William Cheung in this manner is very COMMON
>knowlege.
You mean like in the letter where Bruce asks william cheung to stop acting
like he was Bruce's instructor (published, ironically, by William Cheung in a
book - I can't recall the name, but it is about bruce lee.
>>Personally, I don't think W. Cheung could have beaten Bruce Lee anytime after
>>1970.
>And that of course is after seeing Bruce Lee fight in person, as well as
>William Cheung, right? Geeze, you must have been very fortunate to see
>Bruce fight in person. Oh, don't tell me.....you just happened to watch
>Enter The Dragon again for the 900th time last night.....that must be it.
Wong shun leung, and wendy lee (wong shun leung's sister) both have seen both
fight. They could venture an oppinion. I'll see if I can find out next week.
Bill from oz
Mary Malmros
Okay. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I have
to do it. I have to. Hit "n" now if you don't want to read something
that has no MA content whatsoever.
In article <1qo342...@uwm.edu> cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty) writes:
[snip]
Mr. Adams......how is this any differen't? You were not there, and
[snip]
am being biased to one side of the issue any differen't than your position?
[snip]
is no differen't than the current anti-smoking movement in the US. I wasn't
[snip]
I ask, how is this any differen't?
[snip]
do with Bruce Lee, and he want's to challenge me? Ok. I'm not opposed to
[snip]
Mr. Adam's then says to the person "Can you tell me
[snip]
be weapons, but conviently....Video Camera's!
[snip]
Mr. Adams get's up, starts to apologize to the people at the seminar, and is
[snip]
with me. We are no differen't in sources except that we are on opposite sides
[snip]
and his organization are obviously lying about it's credentials. Once
Just as a matter of general (I hope) interest: the apostrophe (') is
used in English in a couple of different situations: to denote a
contraction, and to make the possessive form of a noun or proper noun
(but NOT a pronoun).
A contaction is a case in which one or more letters have been eliminated
to make a shorter word. Examples of this are "can't" (contraction of
"cannot") and "isn't" (contraction of "is not"). It is not the case
that every word in English that ends in "nt" is a contracted form; words
such as "bent" and "front", obviously, are not contractions of some weird
word like "benot" or "fronot", and thus should not be spelled "ben't" and
"fron't". Likewise, "different" is not a contraction of "differenot" and
thus should not include an apostrophe, as in "differen't".
One contraction that throws people off a lot is the contraction "it's",
for "it is". Many folks mistakenly think that the possessive pronoun
"its" is in fact the contraction "it's", and write something like,
"The dog wagged it's tail." Clearly this makes no sense. If you
expand this "contraction", you get "The dog wagged it is tail", which
is obviously incorrect. Examples of correct usage of the possessive
and the contraction, respectively, would be:
The dog wagged its tail.
It's a dog's life.
A possessive is an adjective that denotes possession of the noun that it
modifies. Possessive pronouns include words such as "my", "her", and
"their", and do not take an apostrophe. Then there are possessive nouns
and possessive proper nouns, which are formed by adding 's onto a noun
or proper noun. An example of this would be "beginner's", as in "This
is a beginner's guide."
For some reason, a lot of folks tend to confuse possessives with plurals.
This is probably because plurals in English are generally formed by
placing an s at the end of a noun; however, there is no apostrophe
in a plural. Thus, "beginner's" is an adjective, meaning something
belonging to a beginner, while "beginners" is a noun, referring to
more than one beginner. Examples:
This is a beginner's guide.
All of the beginners are over there.
As it seems from the examples clipped above, some folks also seem to confuse
possessives with third-person verb forms, most of which also end in "s".
Again, not every word in the English language that ends in "s" should have
an apostrophe in it. "The student works hard" is correct; "The student
work's hard" is not.
So, in general, when you find yourself tempted to throw in an apostrophe
before every final "s" or in the middle of every final "nt" in the
English language, first ask yourself two questions:
- Is it a contraction? Can this word be expanded to become two
words?
- Is this word a possessive? Is it followed by a noun, and does
it describe ownership of that noun?
If you can't answer "yes" to one of these questions, leave the apostrophe
out.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Malmros | Cayman Systems Inc, 26 Landsdowne St, Cambridge, MA 02139
ma...@cayman.com | Phone 617-494-1999 Fax 617-494-5167 AppleLink CAYMAN.TECH
Steve Gombosi
>
>Okay. This has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I have
>to do it. I have to. Hit "n" now if you don't want to read something
>that has no MA content whatsoever.
>
Shit, Mary...if I wanted to skip non-MA stuff, I'd just hit "c" instead ;-).
[Excerpts deleted]
>Just as a matter of general (I hope) interest: the apostrophe (') is
>used in English in a couple of different situations: to denote a
>contraction, and to make the possessive form of a noun or proper noun
>(but NOT a pronoun).
A'w'' g''ee' M'ar'y...your' ta'king ''al'l t'he' fu'n ou't o'f' i't'...
S't''ev'e
Stephen...@transarc.com
> I am curious that you would seem to interpret my moderate perspective as
> being fervently pro-Cheung,
Have I stated that you were fervently pro-Cheung? Hmmmm...
I studied too much philosophy in college and have developed
the annoying habit of criticizing other people's arguments and
(in return) defending the consistency of my own arguments. People
think I'm taking up a position when I criticize their postings, but in
actuality, I'm just criticizing their argument, and I have no
particular position. I guess it's all pointless sophistry on my part.
If I had a personal position on this whole thing, it is this
"It was unwise of William Cheung to make such a bold claim and issue
an open challenge. He's certainly got lots of guts, and is certainly
an effective MA, but if some guy tackled him from behind and clocked
him, then it was kind of his own fault."
But hey, William Cheung has bigger balls than I do.
> I tend to take this as an indication that you are
> solely interested in the controversy and not the resolution, and also that
> your criticisms in this regard are solely rhetorical in nature.
My criticisms are pretty much rhetorical, and I confess to
enjoying a little controversy now and then. Would you accuse me of the
same thing if I were a WC student, and made the same observations?
Whatever the case, when folks air their dirty laundry
this way, people start to comment on it.
> I have no doubt that William Chueng has offended the sensibilities of
> other Wing Chun practitioners in the past. I also have no doubt that
> he has been similarly offended by others. To me what is most important is
> that he shows a willingness to live amicably in the present.
That is interesting, I am not aware of current politics in the
WC world. I am (really!) sincerely glad to hear that everyone is
getting along - I tend to comment on silliness, and while I get a low
class amusement from commenting on that stuff, I realise that the
world is a better place without it.
> Both Bruce Lee and Emin Botzepe, or Botzepe and Cheung?
Bruce Lee and Emin Botzepe.
> I suspect the insult was mutual, and the issue of who was really right in
> a larger sense is not only moot, but past.
Having seen enough ugly politics even in the small Pgh MA
community, I am inclined to agree. But I generally root against the
guy who is very cocky. Thus my bias against Cheung (from what I've read)
> I have often thought that your posts did a good job of deflating the
> pomposity of others, and gently suggest a bit of self-administration on your
> part.
A fair enough suggestion. I guess I can be rightly accused of
pompously introducing my opinion in this matter. When folks start
bickering about their political stuff on the net, it should come as no
surprise that people start to comment on it, and maybe even make fun
of it in other threads.
Bill Dowding
>>Events prior to the fight are mostly a matter of open record in the
>>martial arts press. Cheung for many years had been claiming to be the
>>one true Grandmaster of Wing Chun and the world's deadliest fighter.
>>He repeatedly issued open challenges in the press, offering to fight
>>anyone, any time, any place.
>>Cheung insulted the rest of the WT/WC/VT
>>family as well as Grandmaster Yip Man, by claiming that Grandmaster
>>Yip Man cheated all of his thousands of students except Cheung, teaching
>>the rest fake, inferior technique.
>Mr. Adams, all William said was simply that he had learned something different
>from Yip Man, that he considers the "original Wing Chun". He did not rub it
>in anyone's face, nor did he say "I'm great, you suck, I dare you to prove
>different." He said that if anyone wishes to dispute the existance of Classical
>Wing Chun, they were free to come to Australia any time and he would show them.
Actually, William Cheung challenged all. A pity my copy of the letter is on
loan, but william cheung said more than once that he was the best fighter, and
he was willing to prove it. I can't remember offhand whether it was any time,
anywhere, though.See earlier posting re this, I offered to quote it, but was
told marty already had a copy on disk. I'd have to type mine in.
>Now whether you and the rest of your organization choose to view this as a
>challenge is up to you. But please don't distort the facts. It is in
>print. I blame Bey Logan too, for presenting this as a challenge when Cheung's
>response to your organization's letter was first published.
Bey logan has nothing to do with us here in Oz, but it said the same thing
word for word. The word challenge was definitely used by william cheung.
>>He called Grandmaster Yip Man a drug
>>addict as well!
>He most certainly did not. Your statement is the equivalent of calling my
>college TA an alcoholic because he goes to a bar every Friday night.
>What Cheung did say was that Yip Man used Opium. Now if you learned about
>Chinese history (which I have no idea if you have), Opium usage was very
>common among the older generation in Hong Kong and mainland China. It
>was looked upon by the "older generation" much the same way cigarette smokers
>view smoking here. Now whether the government held the same viewpoint is
>besides the point. The fact remains that Yip Man and many other Gung Fu
>masters at the time smoked opium recreationaly, and viewed it the same way
>cigarette smokers view thier right to light up a cigarette here. Now
>what William did was say how he thought it was wrong that Yip Man smoked
>Opium because it was unhealthy, and almost contradictory to the goals of
>Gung Fu. This is in no way calling him "a drug addict" as you put it, and
>is no differen't than the current anti-smoking movement in the US. I wasn't
>aware that smokers were being called "druggies" and "drug addicts" either.
That's not quite how I remember it. He didn't use the word addict, I don't
think. Actually Yip Man was apparently a heavy user, and it was illegal, but
he was also old and not well towards the end, so given the culture and
situation, it's not so bad. However, William Cheung did say it in a way that
implied something distastefull.
>>At Cheung's seminar, Emin confronted Cheung with a copy of the British
>>magazine Combat, in which Cheung's latest open challenge was printed.
>Again, another of your "opinions" not facts. If your organization chose
>to view it as this because the editor of Combat, Bey Logan, chose to
>portray it this way, that does not make it fact. It simply said, and I
>quote "if they dispute the existence of traditioal wing chun, they are always
>welcome to come and I will show them."
Misquote altogether. Not even close. It actually said more like "if you doubt
that I am the best fighter in Wing Chun, then they are welcome, and I will
show them" This is after calling the top masters something like "fat old out
of shape men or somesuch.
>Not to mention that Emin confronted Cheung in the middle of a seminar,
>as was previously stated.
>>He told Cheung that he was there to accept the open challenge. I have
>>seen two different photographs of this scene published in the martial
>>arts press. In one, Emin is holding up an open copy of Combat magazine
>>as the two men face each other from a distance of about ten feet. In
>>the other photo, the two men are also facing each other from about the
>>same distance, but no magazine is seen. In both photos, other people
>>are seen around the middle where Cheung and Emin stand. The
>>spectators look somewhat scared and Emin Boztepe and William Cheung
>>look like they are about ready to break into a fight. Both Emin and
>>Cheung agree that at this point Cheung said he would fight AFTER the
>>seminar. I asked Emin why he would not honor this seemingly reasonable
>>request, and he replied that he believed Cheung would not fight ever
>>unless he was not allowed time to back out.
I've only seen the one with the magazine in hand.
>So this excuses Emin from his conduct? It makes his conduct right because
>he thought Cheung would back out? I see, so because he thought that, it
>must be true. So it was alright then.
If you say these things as he did, then he should be prepared to back them up
with what he said he would. I know personally three people who challenged him
- and he didn't accept any of them. One travelled to melbourne personally, and
was basically told that William Cheung would take legal action (I only have
his word for what was said, but I know for sure it actually happened.) The
other one was Sifu Barry Lee (my sifu) who did it in writing, and offered to
do it Hong Kong style as is traditional, and sent letters to magazines, not
for publication but for information. Since Barry has more experience in HK
challenges than William Cheung, (especially since barry did it as an adult,
not a teenager) he declined.
>>Emin said at this point
>>he reminded Cheung that his standing challenge said any time, any place.
>>Emin says he counted to ten (I don't know whether this was aloud)
>>and then attacked Cheung.
>All of which was in German, Mr. Adams. A language which is not William's
>native language, and which he would hardly speak fluently except for maybe
>a few basic words like "Yes, no, and please." Emin proceded to yell the
>reminder and started couting....all in German.
Not relevant
>I could see this as a possible slip up on Emin's part since he was obviously
>hyped up, that he automatically spoke in his native tounge (instead of the
>English he used for the rest of the challenge).
>By that time, Cheung had turned around to get the organizer's (Augustinos Yu)
>attention.
Not relevant
>>William Cheung (and others who were not even
>>there!) claim that Cheung was attacked from behind. I asked Emin, and
>>Emin told me this was not true. In fact, Emin is extremely angry that
>>people would make such an assertion which questions his honor and
>>integrity. To put it bluntly, Emin has publicly said that people should
>>have the guts to say that to his face, rather than attack him from behind
>>his back, especially since that is behavior they claim to abhor (and yes,
>>Emin put that more colorfully!).
Not relevant either
>>When my Si-Fu, Robert Jacquet, then head of the American branch of
>>Grandmaster Leung Ting's International Wing Tsun Martial Art Association
>>(IWTMAA) received a copy of the video, he sent it to Inside Kung Fu
>>Magazine, in an effort to quell some of the rumors which were flying
>>around about the event. They called William Cheung in Australia and
>>told him that they had the video. Cheung flew to Los Angeles and viewed
>>the video at the Inside Kung Fu office. After viewing the video and
>>realizing for the first time that the initial clash of the fight was not
>>recorded, Cheung asserted for the first time that he was attacked from
>>behind. However, if one carefully analyzes the video, it can be seen
>>that in the initial frame, the two men are essentially face to face, so
>>either Cheung was not attacked from behind or he succeeded in turning
>>around.
again not relevant
>Succeeded in turning around is correct. The videos were taken
>AFTER the fight had allready started. As is noted, the people in your
>organization just "happened" to have video cameras and cameras with.
>They also just "happened" to count to a certain ammount of time at which
>time Emin got up and everyone scooted out VERY quickly.
>>So does all this mean Cheung was not attacked from behind? No, it means
>>that only those who personally witnessed the fight will ever know for
>>sure. Personally, I believe that Emin did not attack Cheung from behind,
>>but that will always be just an opinion.
Now we get to it:
Here's another question
>>for you: If William Cheung was the one true Grandmaster of Wing Tsun/Wing
>>Chun/Ving Tsun and the deadliest fighter in the world, should anyone have
>>been even been able to jump him unaware from behind, especially after
>>announcing that they were there to challenge him?
Now that last point is relevent. I know of several WC masters who have been
attacked from behind, or outnumbered, or with knives, and they don't make
excuses. But then, they won. And I have also heard of an incident where, long
ago when Leung Ting was a little more um loud about his oppinions. To cut a
long story short, he argued about a parking space with some gentleman - old in
the version I first heard - who listened to him talk for a while about being
an important Wing Chun master, then left him lying in a pool of blood. No-one
apparently knew who he was. Not really relevant, but it goes to show you
really should be careful what you say, and to who. My own sifu had one where
he told a triad leader where to get off, and it caused problems for years,
with him being a target for them for three months while in HK before it was
sorted out.
Ummm. I would have thought if you thought people had weapons etc, then WC
strategies call for a response other than this. Like taking them out
of the fight. Not wrestling.
>>At the time of the fight, approximately 6 or 7 years ago, Emin had been
>>practicing WT for about 6 or 7 years (he started in 1980), an average
>>of six hours a day. He was a second or third level instructor in WT
>>(he is now a fourth level instructor). Yes, Emin had also studied
>>other martial arts, including Turkish wrestling, but his primary art
>>was and remains WT. The techniques he is seen using on the video are
>>primarily well known, basic WT techniques applied in an unorthodox
>>but not necessarily uncommon manner
>What he was doing was wrestling and grappling, plain and simple.
In that case it should have been easy to stitch him up a treat.
>>Modern Wing Tsun includes the
>>ability to fight at any range, including ground fighting,
>As any good Wing Chun should.
>>This is true as far as it goes, Wing Tsun/Wing Chun/Ving Tsun are all
>>valid transliterations of the Chinese sounds. However, Grandmaster
>>Leung Ting has gone to the trouble of getting trademark rights in most
>>countries around the world for the spelling "Wing Tsun."
>Let me point out here too folks, another irony or contradiction. Mr. Adams
>freely quotes Leung Ting with the title Grandmaster, yet cuts down William
>for claiming that he is one. There are also plenty of people in the Ving Tsun
>organization and outside of it, that dispute Leung Ting's claim, and do not
>think much of his Gung Fu. Now mind you, these are also the same people who
>were attacking William.
Neither of them is grandmaster. He is dead. he was yip man, and didn't name a
successor. Anyone claiming otherwise is naming themselves, or people are
erroneously calling them that, in contradiction to tradition.
>>Therefore,
>>anyone who uses this spelling is either associated with him directly or
>>they are probably illegally using the trademark.
>Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't aware of his getting Wing Tsun
>trademarked.
It's true, and it's crooked. However, I'm pretty sure our copy right laws her
in oz do not permit normal permutations of terms in foreign languages to be
protected, so we can here. I think.
>>Grandmaster Leung Ting
>>is known for being the last closed-door disciple of the late Grandmaster
>>Yip Man, and the trademark assures WT students that they are indeed
>>receiving Wing Tsun knowledge received from Grandmaster Yip Man at the
>>end of his life, when his own understanding was at the greatest it would
>>ever be.
>Of course, because your organization says so it's obviously true. And William
>and his organization are obviously lying about it's credentials. Once
>again, if you expect people to take you seriously by using that reasoning, you
>must also expect them to give us the same courtesy.
Make up your own minds, folk out there in the real world. One is saying white
is black, the other that black is white.
(IMHO,(for anyone who cares) however, should I be forced to choose between
just these two, I would choose Leung ting's lot. This however, is only judging
by limited experience, since as far as I know, leung ting doesn't have any schools
in this country. Only going by books, vids, etc, which are poor info at best.)
>I am in no way saying Leung Ting is wrong, or a fraud. So don't missquote
>me or get me wrong. I am simply saying...how should I say it...."What's good
>for the goose is good for the gander".
Not necessarily. I think a much richer sauce, with, say, a little more cheese.
(meaning the goose could be cooked)
>>The reason Grandmaster Leung Ting occasionally uses the spelling
>>"Ving Tsun" is that this is the spelling preferred by Grandmaster Yip Man
>>and still in use by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association, the association
>>of all descendants of Grandmaster Yip Man's WT/WC/VT family. Grandmaster
>>Leung Ting sits on the board of the VTAA, as do most of the Grandmasters
>>and Masters of WT/WC/VT.
Um. Call Wong Shun Leung grandmaster, and he will laugh a lot. He isn't really
too fond of anyone not a student calling him sifu. (hearsay only. From my
sifu, about my sigung)
>>Incidentally, William Cheung was long ago kicked
>>out of the VTAA,
>Difference of opinion...equivalent to a boss firing an employee while the
>employee is saying that they quit.
>>after all diplomatic ways of dealing with him had failed.
>I will agree with this, but substitute the word "him" with "between everyone".
Opinions, opinions. squeeze them both, see which remains.
>>A letter from all of the top students of Grandmaster Yip Man and even
>>from Grandmaster Yip Man's sons was later published in most martial arts
>>magazines worldwide (including Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu) denying all
>>of William Cheung's claims point-by-point and saying that they were sorry
>>to have to admit that such a person was a member of the
>>Wing Chun/Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun clan.
>Ah yes....this would be the one he responded to "point-by-point" when you
>guys and Bey Logan accused him of putting forth a challenge. The one
>that started the whole thing to a heat in the first place.
Well, marty, if you do have the article/letters on disk, I think it would be
time to front it now. if you don't have it, I'll do excerpts over a time.
>And don't try to impress people by saying "even from Grandmaster Yip Man's
>sons". While they may be talented Wing Chun practitioners, there are those
>who know they have no authority to ride on their father's credentials.
Bill Dowding again
Just another nobody from Oz
This is too bloody long - I tried to shorten it, taking out bits everywhere,
especially rhetoric and adverts, but will no doubt get accused of taking it
out of context
michael.e.adams
waiting for an account and was having to go through intermediaries to read
and post articles, I didn't. Anyway, I had said pretty much what I wanted
to say, and other responses were good. Since I now have an account, I will
reply to this reply to Marty's flame of my article.
BE WARNED! This thing just keeps growing and it's pretty long. So if
you're not interested in the debate, might as well delete it.
In article <1993Apr30....@scorch.apana.org.au> bi...@scorch.apana.org.au (Bill Dowding) writes:
>cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty) writes:
>
>
>
wing...@ihlpm.att.com (Mike Adams) writes:
>>>Events prior to the fight are mostly a matter of open record in the
>>>martial arts press. Cheung for many years had been claiming to be the
>>>one true Grandmaster of Wing Chun and the world's deadliest fighter.
>>>He repeatedly issued open challenges in the press, offering to fight
>>>anyone, any time, any place.
>>>Cheung insulted the rest of the WT/WC/VT
>>>family as well as Grandmaster Yip Man, by claiming that Grandmaster
>>>Yip Man cheated all of his thousands of students except Cheung, teaching
>>>the rest fake, inferior technique.
>
cir...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Marty) writes:
>>Mr. Adams, all William said was simply that he had learned something different
>>from Yip Man, that he considers the "original Wing Chun". He did not rub it
>>in anyone's face, nor did he say "I'm great, you suck, I dare you to prove
>>different." He said that if anyone wishes to dispute the existance of Classical
>>Wing Chun, they were free to come to Australia any time and he would show them.
bi...@scorch.apana.org.au (Bill Dowding) writes:
>Actually, William Cheung challenged all. A pity my copy of the letter is on
>loan, but william cheung said more than once that he was the best fighter, and
>he was willing to prove it. I can't remember offhand whether it was any time,
>anywhere, though.See earlier posting re this, I offered to quote it, but was
>told marty already had a copy on disk. I'd have to type mine in.
>
As Mr. Dowding states and I originally stated, I remember the open
challenges from William Cheung being much more blatant than Marty would
have us believe. I don't know how long you've been following the politics,
Marty, so I don't know if you read Cheung's original words or are hearing
them from others. I'll have to do some searching. I'm sure I have the
old magazines from ten or twelve years ago in a box somewhere. I'll try
to find the actual quotes from William Cheung's articles and advertisements
in the American magazines. I don't have the Combat magazine article,
unfortunately. Perhaps Mr. Dowding can supply it.
>>>He called Grandmaster Yip Man a drug
>>>addict as well!
>
>>He most certainly did not. Your statement is the equivalent of calling my
>>college TA an alcoholic because he goes to a bar every Friday night.
>>What Cheung did say was that Yip Man used Opium. Now if you learned about
>>Chinese history (which I have no idea if you have), Opium usage was very
>>common among the older generation in Hong Kong and mainland China. It
>>was looked upon by the "older generation" much the same way cigarette smokers
>>view smoking here. Now whether the government held the same viewpoint is
>>besides the point. The fact remains that Yip Man and many other Gung Fu
>>masters at the time smoked opium recreationaly, and viewed it the same way
>>cigarette smokers view thier right to light up a cigarette here. Now
>>what William did was say how he thought it was wrong that Yip Man smoked
>>Opium because it was unhealthy, and almost contradictory to the goals of
>>Gung Fu. This is in no way calling him "a drug addict" as you put it, and
>>is no differen't than the current anti-smoking movement in the US. I wasn't
>>aware that smokers were being called "druggies" and "drug addicts" either.
>
>That's not quite how I remember it. He didn't use the word addict, I don't
>think. Actually Yip Man was apparently a heavy user, and it was illegal, but
>he was also old and not well towards the end, so given the culture and
>situation, it's not so bad. However, William Cheung did say it in a way that
>implied something distastefull.
>
Opium usage was definitely a rather common, though illegal, social
indulgence at that time among older Chinese (perhaps still?) in Hong Kong,
and was looked at perhaps like drinking during Prohibition might have
been looked at in America, or pot smoking in the Sixties. Also,
Grandmaster Yip Man did apparently take pain medicine toward the end of
his life as he was dying of cancer. William Cheung did indeed take facts
as well as embellish them with sordid fantasy to paint Grandmaster Yip
Man in an inaccurate light which most felt was a grave insult to the
memory of Grandmaster Yip Man. For instance, Cheung also claimed that
Grandmaster Yip Man used Cocaine in the Fifties. So far I have neither
seen or heard any evidence of this, and I seriously doubt if Cocaine was
even a common drug in the Fifties in Hong Kong!
>>>Cheung agree that at this point Cheung said he would fight AFTER the
>>>seminar. I asked Emin why he would not honor this seemingly reasonable
>>>request, and he replied that he believed Cheung would not fight ever
>>>unless he was not allowed time to back out.
>>So this excuses Emin from his conduct? It makes his conduct right because
>>he thought Cheung would back out? I see, so because he thought that, it
>>must be true. So it was alright then.
>
>If you say these things as he did, then he should be prepared to back them up
>with what he said he would. I know personally three people who challenged him
>- and he didn't accept any of them. One travelled to melbourne personally, and
>was basically told that William Cheung would take legal action (I only have
>his word for what was said, but I know for sure it actually happened.) The
>other one was Sifu Barry Lee (my sifu) who did it in writing, and offered to
>do it Hong Kong style as is traditional, and sent letters to magazines, not
>for publication but for information. Since Barry has more experience in HK
>challenges than William Cheung, (especially since barry did it as an adult,
>not a teenager) he declined.
I agree with Mr. Dowding. If you issue open challenges you should be ready
at all times to accept the possible consequences. Grandmaster Leung Ting
also repeatedly sent letters (telegrams, too, I believe) to William Cheung
to accept his open challenge. Grandmaster Leung Ting offered to meet
William Cheung any place in the world and fight him under any rules or
no rules, whatever Cheung chose. Cheung never answered.
>>>Emin said at this point
>>>he reminded Cheung that his standing challenge said any time, any place.
>>>Emin says he counted to ten (I don't know whether this was aloud)
>>>and then attacked Cheung.
>
>>All of which was in German, Mr. Adams. A language which is not William's
>>native language, and which he would hardly speak fluently except for maybe
>>a few basic words like "Yes, no, and please." Emin proceded to yell the
>>reminder and started couting....all in German.
>
>Not relevant
>
I agree it's not really relevant. The intentions were obvious.
>>>William Cheung (and others who were not even
>>>there!) claim that Cheung was attacked from behind. I asked Emin, and
>>>Emin told me this was not true. In fact, Emin is extremely angry that
>>>people would make such an assertion which questions his honor and
>>>integrity. To put it bluntly, Emin has publicly said that people should
>>>have the guts to say that to his face, rather than attack him from behind
>>>his back, especially since that is behavior they claim to abhor (and yes,
>>>Emin put that more colorfully!).
>Not relevant either
I do believe this is relevant...not to the fight, but I could not allow
Marty to attack Emin Boztepe's personal integrity and honor without
stating that there are two versions of the story.
>>Succeeded in turning around is correct. The videos were taken
>>AFTER the fight had allready started. As is noted, the people in your
>>organization just "happened" to have video cameras and cameras with.
>>They also just "happened" to count to a certain ammount of time at which
>>time Emin got up and everyone scooted out VERY quickly.
I am told by people involved on the WT side of the fight that only the
first fraction of a second was not caught on video, and that this was
unintentional and was due to the initial clash happening so quickly that
the camera was simply not turned on fast enough. I have no way of proving
this; however, if you look at the initial frames of the video you will
see William Cheung in his well-known lead-hand/lead-leg up entry technique
which he had been printing in magazines for years. Since this was
supposedly (by his own words) his favorite entry technique at the beginning
of a fight, perhaps this is verification that the camera only missed the
first fraction of a second. And why should Emin not leave very quickly
after making his point? It probably would not be very intelligent to
stand around afterwards in a rather hostile environment.
>>>So does all this mean Cheung was not attacked from behind? No, it means
>>>that only those who personally witnessed the fight will ever know for
>>>sure. Personally, I believe that Emin did not attack Cheung from behind,
>>>but that will always be just an opinion.
This was really my main point for the whole original article I posted.
For years, Emin's side of the story was suppressed by the martial arts
press in America (that's a whole issue in itself), and I'm pretty tired
of hearing William Cheung's side presented as absolute Truth. There are
two sides. Make up your own mind.
>Now we get to it:
>
>Here's another question
>>>for you: If William Cheung was the one true Grandmaster of Wing Tsun/Wing
>>>Chun/Ving Tsun and the deadliest fighter in the world, should anyone have
>>>been even been able to jump him unaware from behind, especially after
>>>announcing that they were there to challenge him?
>
>Now that last point is relevent. I know of several WC masters who have been
>attacked from behind, or outnumbered, or with knives, and they don't make
>excuses. But then, they won. <rest of line moved below>
Yes, my point exactly.
>And I have also heard of an incident where, long
>ago when Leung Ting was a little more um loud about his oppinions. To cut a
>long story short, he argued about a parking space with some gentleman - old in
>the version I first heard - who listened to him talk for a while about being
>an important Wing Chun master, then left him lying in a pool of blood. No-one
>apparently knew who he was. Not really relevant, but it goes to show you
>really should be careful what you say, and to who. <snip-triad story deleted>
Now this is interesting. I haven't heard this one before. Actually this
doesn't sound like Grandmaster Leung Ting's behavior -- plus I find the
bit about him being left in a pool of blood rather hard to believe. But
then I'm not so naive as to believe he's superman, either. Who knows how
many incredibly skillful unknown masters there are running around in the
world! I am curious to hear if this is just a rumor you heard passed down
through a lot of mouths (and perhaps changed in the telling) or whether
you actually have reason to believe this story beyond a reasonable doubt.
Perhaps it's apocryphal (sp?) -- I heard a similar story, but with Jhoon
Rhee, a TKD Grandmaster, left in a pool of blood in a parking lot.
>>Ahhh....now we reached the next doublestandard. You seem to want to take
>>into account what Emin was thinking, to justify his actions. You seem
>>to ignore the fact that William is a living, breathing, human being with
>>thoughts of his own. Surely what he was thinking should be allowed to
>>justify his own actions too, shouldn't it? No? Well let's go over it
>>anyways......
>
>
>>Imagine now, if you will......in fact we'll use you in his position....
>
>
>
>>Here's Mr. Adams giving a seminar in West Germany. Mr. Adams has been
>>traveling non stop, giving seminars in four other countries that don't
>>use English or Cantonese as a base language. He's tired, and the problems
>>in the Wing Chun community are on his mind. Mr. Adams is giving the seminar,
>>when someone raises their hand as if you him a question. Mr. Adams walks over.
>>The person stands up, swinging an issue of Combat magazine around in the air.
>
>>You recognize it as the one that Bey Logan printed your response to the Ving
>>Tsun organization in, and promoted it as a challenge. Better be on gaurd.
>> <Imaginative narration of what would if been going on in my mind if I
>> was in William Cheung's position when Emin accepted his open challenge
>> deleted.>
Gee, Marty. Thanks for the interesting look inside William Cheung's mind.
This may surprise you, but I know EXACTLY what it feels like to be
challenged by a visitor while teaching my students. You are correct that
there are a lot of conflicting thoughts and emotions. I can't speak for
what really went on in William Cheung's mind (glad you're psychic :^) ),
but I can tell you there are several things that went on in mine: My job
is to defend my school and my students, therefore I had to win in
whatever way necessary but without letting the confrontation escalate more
than was absolutely necessary. In this particular case, I was able to
achieve that goal -- after I knocked him around the room repeatedly but
not too hard,the challenger, who claimed to be a sixth dan in
Shotokan and a fourth dan in Kenpo, said that he had had enough, and
later left, humbled and embarassed but still in one piece, and he even
complimented me as he left. Are you saying I should have tried the
"William Cheung method" -- control your opponent by letting him beat the
heck out of you at will?
>
>>>This is true as far as it goes, Wing Tsun/Wing Chun/Ving Tsun are all
>>>valid transliterations of the Chinese sounds. However, Grandmaster
>>>Leung Ting has gone to the trouble of getting trademark rights in most
>>>countries around the world for the spelling "Wing Tsun."
>
>>Let me point out here too folks, another irony or contradiction. Mr. Adams
>>freely quotes Leung Ting with the title Grandmaster, yet cuts down William
>>for claiming that he is one. There are also plenty of people in the Ving Tsun
>>organization and outside of it, that dispute Leung Ting's claim, and do not
>>think much of his Gung Fu. Now mind you, these are also the same people who
>>were attacking William.
>
>Neither of them is grandmaster. He is dead. he was yip man, and didn't name a
>successor. Anyone claiming otherwise is naming themselves, or people are
>erroneously calling them that, in contradiction to tradition.
>
Well...yes and no. It is true that the late Grandmaster Yip Man appointed
no successor and there is no one single Grandmaster of the entire Wing Tsun
family. Until William Cheung started calling himself Grandmaster, no one
else had done so, to my knowledge. Afterwards, Sifu Leung Ting began
using the title Grandmaster -- but with a difference: Grandmaster Leung
Ting only claimed to be Grandmaster of his particular branch of the
Wing Tsun family, whereas William Cheung claimed to be Grandmaster of all.
A couple other Wing Tsun instructors now call themselves Grandmasters,
including Wong Shun Leung, Tsui Sheung Tin, and Yip Chun. Not exactly
traditional, but there is a precedent in some other systems, where different
branches have different Grandmasters. Dare I say it: Yes, even William
Cheung can legitimately claim to be Grandmaster of his branch. He simply
isn't the one true Grandmaster of all WT/WC/VT...no one is.
>>>Therefore,
>>>anyone who uses this spelling is either associated with him directly or
>>>they are probably illegally using the trademark.
>
>>Thanks for clearing that up. Wasn't aware of his getting Wing Tsun
>>trademarked.
>
>It's true, and it's crooked. However, I'm pretty sure our copy right laws her
>in oz do not permit normal permutations of terms in foreign languages to be
>protected, so we can here. I think.
>
Hmmm...I'm not sure why you think this is crooked. Trademarks are not
normally considered crooked in the business world. The reason Grandmaster
Leung Ting went to the bother of getting the spelling "Wing Tsun" and the
abbreviation "WT" trademarked is that there were some people in Italy (and
other countries later) who claimed to be affiliated with him. The
trademark laws simply allow him some control over his reputation by not
allowing con artists to use his trademark. I'm also not sure why you
would want to use his trademark in oz even if the copyright laws are
different. Your Si-Kung, Wong Shun Leung, and my Si-Kung, Leung Ting
are good friends, and I don't believe Wong Shun Leung would condone that
even if some local law was different.
>>>Grandmaster Leung Ting
>>>is known for being the last closed-door disciple of the late Grandmaster
>>>Yip Man, and the trademark assures WT students that they are indeed
>>>receiving Wing Tsun knowledge received from Grandmaster Yip Man at the
>>>end of his life, when his own understanding was at the greatest it would
>>>ever be.
>
>>Of course, because your organization says so it's obviously true. And William
>>and his organization are obviously lying about it's credentials. Once
>>again, if you expect people to take you seriously by using that reasoning, you
>>must also expect them to give us the same courtesy.
Personally, I don't care if people want to believe that Grandmaster Yip
Man took an eighteen-year-old-self-admitted-juvenile-delinquent out into
his garden and taught him real Wing Chun while teaching fake Wing Chun/Tsun to all of the thousands of others or not. But the fact that young Leung
Ting was the last closed-door disciple of Grandmaster Yip Man is well-known
throughout the WT/WC/VT world, and is verifiable. I also think that saying
that Grandmaster Yip Man's technical understanding of WT/WC/VT in 1970
would be more evolved than it was in the 1950's is something that should
go almost without saying.
>
>Make up your own minds, folk out there in the real world. One is saying white
>is black, the other that black is white.
>
>(IMHO,(for anyone who cares) however, should I be forced to choose between
>just these two, I would choose Leung ting's lot. This however, is only judging
>by limited experience, since as far as I know, leung ting doesn't have any schools
>in this country. Only going by books, vids, etc, which are poor info at best.)
I'm not sure exactly where Oz is (OK, yeah I know, Over the Rainbow, right? :^) )
Somehow, I got the impression you're in Great Britain. If that's the case,
yes Grandmaster Leung Ting's organization is there. If you want, I can
get you a contact.
>>>The reason Grandmaster Leung Ting occasionally uses the spelling
>>>"Ving Tsun" is that this is the spelling preferred by Grandmaster Yip Man
>>>and still in use by the Ving Tsun Athletic Association, the association
>>>of all descendants of Grandmaster Yip Man's WT/WC/VT family. Grandmaster
>>>Leung Ting sits on the board of the VTAA, as do most of the Grandmasters
>>>and Masters of WT/WC/VT.
>
>Um. Call Wong Shun Leung grandmaster, and he will laugh a lot. He isn't really
>too fond of anyone not a student calling him sifu. (hearsay only. From my
>sifu, about my sigung)
As far as I know, Wong Shun Leung is now calling himself Grandmaster, or
at least others are calling him that. The last several times I've seen
his name in print, that title was used.
>>>A letter from all of the top students of Grandmaster Yip Man and even
>>>from Grandmaster Yip Man's sons was later published in most martial arts
>>>magazines worldwide (including Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu) denying all
>>>of William Cheung's claims point-by-point and saying that they were sorry
>>>to have to admit that such a person was a member of the
>>>Wing Chun/Wing Tsun/Ving Tsun clan.
>
>>Ah yes....this would be the one he responded to "point-by-point" when you
>>guys and Bey Logan accused him of putting forth a challenge. The one
>>that started the whole thing to a heat in the first place.
>
>Well, marty, if you do have the article/letters on disk, I think it would be
>time to front it now. if you don't have it, I'll do excerpts over a time.
Yes, I agree. That's the one article in question that I haven't seen, and
I really would like to see it.
>
>>And don't try to impress people by saying "even from Grandmaster Yip Man's
>>sons". While they may be talented Wing Chun practitioners, there are those
>>who know they have no authority to ride on their father's credentials.
Hmmm...I think perhaps I should not put my foot in my mouth about this one.
We've probably all heard the same things, but then I've never met his sons.
I once asked Grandmaster Leung Ting about the relative skills of himself
and such WT/WC/VT notables as Yip Chun, Wong Shun Leung, Hawkins Cheung,
and Augustine Fong. He simply looked at me and said, "These men are my
friends, what would you have me say?"
When I dig up the original articles and advertisements published in
America by William Cheung, I'll post the appropriate quotes. It might
take a couple weeks to find them.
Mike Adams
wing...@ihlpm.att.com