CHICAGO WING CHUN

[CK26M]

If there is anyone that is interested in training in a wing chun school that
applies the principles of Hsing I, Tai Chi, and Ba Gua in it, the way it was
originally taught, then please contact me for more information.

The styles mentioned above are offered seperately as well.

CK

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>If there is anyone that is interested in training in a wing chun school that
>applies the principles of Hsing I, Tai Chi, and Ba Gua in it, the way it was
>originally taught, then please contact me for more information.

Really? You mean there's someone teaching that's been around for a couple
hundred years? Wow, what's their secret to long life?

Hogwash, there's no way anyone can seriously trace back further than
the red boats, and there's nowhere that says what original arts were put
together to create wing chun. That's just speculation.

>
>The styles mentioned above are offered seperately as well.

Which is the key. If someone studies those arts as apparently your teacher
has, see's a correlation and decides to teach a hsing I, tai chi, ba qua
(gee, why not claim wing chun being created by any other of the many internal
arts, why just the ones that are being taught there seperately as well?
Seems fishy.) influenced wing chun that's fine. But don't start calling it
"original", because there's no way anybody can say how something was taught.

>CK

Marty
WWCKFA -- www.wwckfa.com
IWCKFF

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>Marty,
>
>It seems to be that some people here wish to rush in and tongue lash without a
>thought. Now what I wrote was meant to spark discussion and although you
>started out insulting, discussion has still been sparked.

No actually you were very insulting in your post as in your previous ones.
The very notion that solely you and the rest of Buddha Hand teach Wing
Chun "as it was originally taught" is extremely insulting to many and
has already been done to death in wing chun politics.

And you've also insulted people by trying to misslead them saying Jessie
Glover taught you wing chun, then you changed it to he taught you JKD.
Neither of which Jessie teaches. In fact I talked with him and you had
been to a seminar or two. Really now, you expect people here to take you
seriously with all this going on?

>My teacher's teacher is Henry Leung.

I am familiar with Leung Sifu and his branch. None that I have
talked to make such antagonistic claims as you do.

>Henry Leung is in his 70's now. He was
>a monk and the top disciple of a monk in China. So let me do some math here.
> If he is 70, and his teacher lived to be a bit older, that would make it close
>to 150 years thus far. Since H. Leung's teacher had a teacher....well.....I
>think you can see what I mean.

Well, that would be no different than any other branch. Do the math.
Everyone has a teacher who had a teacher. And most leaders/teachers of
wing chun branches lived a long time. Yip Man was how old? Sum Nung
is how old? Their teachers lived to be how old? Every branch can make
the same claim. And you're getting a bit condescending in your tone.

>After citing that lineage, one that I can give names to if need be, let's
>discuss your other point.

You seem to have missunderstood my point. Point being not that wing chun
is not internal (because I believe it is), but that there's no way you
can sit there on your high horse and say that this is what wing chun
comes from or the way it was originally taught.

>Wing Chun, without the internal elements, is just a
>hard style. Perhaps I did not cleary explain myself, but I did not mean that
>Tai Chi, Ba gua, Hsing I,(Which I was using only a few as examples to
>illustrate the point about principles) etc....were taught with wing chun
>originally, but that the principles that are in these arts were taught.

I understand perfectly well. However the concepts of arts such as those
can be found in understanding of the Tao and Baqua and are found in many
arts. And many wing chun branches still teach it that way as well.

>The powers in these arts, such as drilling, coiling, whipping, swallowing and
>spitting, riding another's energy, etc...are supposed to be in Wing Chun.
>Without it, it is incomplete.

And who's saying it's not currently in wing chun? You mean you've seen
every style and branch of wing chun to determine this? Or is it another
case of "Sifu told me so"?

>Wing Chun has Wood, fire, metal, water, and earth in it. Without these powers
>you can't use it. To claim otherwise in nonsense Marty because that leaves an
>ineffective Wing Chun system.

To put words in the mouths of others is nonsense as well.

Likewise, how long have you studied your branche's wing chun and other
branches to make such broadbase claims as to what is effective and
non-effective wing chun?

>I am sorry if I led you to believe that the styles were taught along with Wing
>Chun, that was not my intention. I merely meant the principles and used those
>styles to illustrate my point. I am sorry if I did not specify that.

No problem.

>I would love to dialogue on this further with you. There should be no
>misunderstandings between us.
>
>CK

Missunderstandings and differences of opinion are two different things.

[Ahanning]

>>Henry Leung is in his 70's now. He was
>>a monk and the top disciple of a monk in China. So let me do some math
here.
>> If he is 70, and his teacher lived to be a bit older, that would make it
close
>>to 150 years thus far. Since H. Leung's teacher had a teacher....well.....I
>>think you can see what I mean.

Not wanting to be overly picky, but unless he started learning the day he was
born from his teacher who was on his deathbed (not conducive to a good
education) then it would be considerably less than 150 years.
Not that this line of argument is valid anyway, just being picky I suppose.

[CK26M]

Marty,

It seems to be that some people here wish to rush in and tongue lash without a
thought. Now what I wrote was meant to spark discussion and although you
started out insulting, discussion has still been sparked.

My teacher's teacher is Henry Leung. Henry Leung is in his 70's now. He was

a monk and the top disciple of a monk in China. So let me do some math here.
If he is 70, and his teacher lived to be a bit older, that would make it close
to 150 years thus far. Since H. Leung's teacher had a teacher....well.....I
think you can see what I mean.

After citing that lineage, one that I can give names to if need be, let's
discuss your other point. Wing Chun, without the internal elements, is just a

hard style. Perhaps I did not cleary explain myself, but I did not mean that
Tai Chi, Ba gua, Hsing I,(Which I was using only a few as examples to
illustrate the point about principles) etc....were taught with wing chun
originally, but that the principles that are in these arts were taught.

The powers in these arts, such as drilling, coiling, whipping, swallowing and

spitting, riding another's energy, etc...are supposed to be in Wing Chun.
Without it, it is incomplete.

Wing Chun has Wood, fire, metal, water, and earth in it. Without these powers

you can't use it. To claim otherwise in nonsense Marty because that leaves an
ineffective Wing Chun system.

I am sorry if I led you to believe that the styles were taught along with Wing

Chun, that was not my intention. I merely meant the principles and used those
styles to illustrate my point. I am sorry if I did not specify that.

I would love to dialogue on this further with you. There should be no
misunderstandings between us.

CK

[CK26M]

>No actually you were very insulting in your post as in your previous ones.
>The very notion that solely you and the rest of Buddha Hand teach Wing
>Chun "as it was originally taught" is extremely insulting to many and
>has already been done to death in wing chun politics.

Now it is you who put words in people's mouths. I never said that we "soley"
teach it as it was originally taught. There are plenty of other schools that
do. I never made such claims. What I said was there was a school in
Chicago that teaches it tradtionally, with the internal aspects. I've been to
three other schools in Chicago that teach Wing Chun, and I am sorry, they were
all totally external.

>And you've also insulted people by trying to misslead them saying Jessie
>Glover taught you wing chun, then you changed it to he taught you JKD.
>Neither of which Jessie teaches. In fact I talked with him and you had
>been to a seminar or two. Really now, you expect people here to take you
>seriously with all this going on?

Jesse came and went over Chi Sao with in the seminar. I doubt you have talked
with him, otherwise you would have known that.
He also talked much about how "this is what Bruce taught". So are you saying
that he was lying? Oh, by the way, I was there at the seminar. Not to
mention we did lots of straight punches and pak das....I guess that is not wing
chun huh?

>I am familiar with Leung Sifu and his branch. None that I have
>talked to make such antagonistic claims as you do.

My claims were not antagonistic, your ego is too fragile to handle what I said
in the spirit that it was meant. I also doubt you have ever talked with
Leung. You may be "familiar" with his "branch", but I doubt you are familiar
with his system.

>Everyone has a teacher who had a teacher. And most leaders/teachers of
>wing chun branches lived a long time. Yip Man was how old? Sum Nung
>is how old? Their teachers lived to be how old? Every branch can make
>the same claim. And you're getting a bit condescending in your tone.

Yes they can make the same claim. But we all know that the temples were the
haven of the martial arts...a place where my style is directly linked to.
This does not mean that others can not have that same link, but I have not
seen one in Chicago. Me condescending? You started the name calling...not me.
So sweep your own front porch before you worry about mine.

>You seem to have missunderstood my point. Point being not that wing chun
>is not internal (because I believe it is), but that there's no way you
>can sit there on your high horse and say that this is what wing chun
>comes from or the way it was originally taught.

So then you agree with my point because Wing Chun was, is , and always shall be
meant to be taught as an internal style. And for me to say that my school
teaches it the way it was taught, which does not mean that it is exactly taught
the "same way" (Only a fool would assume that from that statement), is correct
because it was originally taught as an internal style..not as an external
style. Which I see so prevelant in other schools, videos, books, etc..

>I understand perfectly well. However the concepts of arts such as those
>can be found in understanding of the Tao and Baqua and are found in many
>arts. And many wing chun branches still teach it that way as well.

I never said that it wasn't...you jumped to conclusions. I forgive you.

>You mean you've seen
>every style and branch of wing chun to determine this? Or is it another
>case of "Sifu told me so"?

Never said I did..again you make up what you want to push an issue that is not
being discussed. And your "Sifu told me so" comment is uncalled for.

>To put words in the mouths of others is nonsense as well.

Hopefully after today you will have learned that.

>Likewise, how long have you studied your branche's wing chun and other
>branches to make such broadbase claims as to what is effective and
>non-effective wing chun?

I have seen them compared for myself as well as talked with others who have
studied for years whose eyes become opened after a few lessons.

It is too bad that you would rather tongue lash than discuss what I meant.
Instead you did chose to fight right away instead of dialoguing with me to see
what it was that I meant. You saddled "your high horse" my friend, and rode
it with banners ablaze. You acted before you found out all the information.
I am sorry you have been subjected to many insults about wing chun.....but
please..it is not my fault.

CK

[CK26M]

It was just a line of descent to continue to follow. Excuse the discrepancy.
Was just trying to make a point.

CK

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>>No actually you were very insulting in your post as in your previous ones.
>>The very notion that solely you and the rest of Buddha Hand teach Wing
>>Chun "as it was originally taught" is extremely insulting to many and
>>has already been done to death in wing chun politics.
>
>Now it is you who put words in people's mouths. I never said that we "soley"
>teach it as it was originally taught. There are plenty of other schools that
>do. I never made such claims.

You made claims that the other schools teach it externally, with no attempt
to differentiate that some besides yours teach it internally as well.
Your words, your mouth, plain and simple.
In fact this is the first you have admitted that others do.

>What I said was there was a school in
>Chicago that teaches it tradtionally, with the internal aspects. I've been to
>three other schools in Chicago that teach Wing Chun, and I am sorry, they were
>all totally external.

Been to. Not studied at. Been to.

>>And you've also insulted people by trying to misslead them saying Jessie
>>Glover taught you wing chun, then you changed it to he taught you JKD.
>>Neither of which Jessie teaches. In fact I talked with him and you had
>>been to a seminar or two. Really now, you expect people here to take you
>>seriously with all this going on?
>
>Jesse came and went over Chi Sao with in the seminar. I doubt you have talked
>with him, otherwise you would have known that.

See, there you calling people a liar. ACtually I got a thank you email
from Jessie for denouncing your claim that he was teaching you wing chun
and later JKD. It was in that email he talked about the seminars (saying
he's done only 3 of then in Chicago over the years).

>He also talked much about how "this is what Bruce taught". So are you saying
>that he was lying?

I'm saying that you are, or at best are missinterpreting. Bruce did
not teach wing chun, and if you bothered to ask Jessie he'd tell you
that. In fact what bruce taught were some elements of it. The Chi Sao
Jessie teaches is his interpretation of Chi Sao and not a wing chun based
version.

>Oh, by the way, I was there at the seminar. Not to
>mention we did lots of straight punches and pak das....I guess that is not wing
>chun huh?

Considering most southern arts have the pak da idea, you sound rediculous.
And someone teaching a pak sao and punch constitutes learning a system from
someone that they don't teach in the first place? Sounds to me like
you're spreading yourself thin. I learned a roundhouse kick from a guy
that learned from a TKD guy. Doesn't mean I learned TKD.

>>I am familiar with Leung Sifu and his branch. None that I have
>>talked to make such antagonistic claims as you do.
>
>My claims were not antagonistic, your ego is too fragile to handle what I said
>in the spirit that it was meant.

Ah, more antagonism. Your ego clearly shows in flying colors to everyone
here.

>I also doubt you have ever talked with
>Leung. You may be "familiar" with his "branch", but I doubt you are familiar
>with his system.

You may be familiar with the few wing chun schools you visited (if you
could call that a credential) but I doubt you're "familiiar" with my
system either.

>>Everyone has a teacher who had a teacher. And most leaders/teachers of
>>wing chun branches lived a long time. Yip Man was how old? Sum Nung
>>is how old? Their teachers lived to be how old? Every branch can make
>>the same claim. And you're getting a bit condescending in your tone.
>
>Yes they can make the same claim. But we all know that the temples were the
>haven of the martial arts...

Actually, at the time wing chun was supposedly developed, they were
the haven of revolutionaries and much of the revolutionary movement.
Steeped in missinformation to throw off the manchurians, there's really
not much that's proven reliable past the red boats.

>a place where my style is directly linked to.

So is most wing chun if you believe in the history.

>This does not mean that others can not have that same link, but I have not
>seen one in Chicago. Me condescending? You started the name calling

You started the name calling and the tone.

>...not me.
> So sweep your own front porch before you worry about mine.

Ahh, from psychology major to backwoods sayings. What's next, a lecture
in TCM?

>>You seem to have missunderstood my point. Point being not that wing chun
>>is not internal (because I believe it is), but that there's no way you
>>can sit there on your high horse and say that this is what wing chun
>>comes from or the way it was originally taught.
>
>So then you agree with my point because Wing Chun was, is , and always shall be
>meant to be taught as an internal style. And for me to say that my school
>teaches it the way it was taught, which does not mean that it is exactly taught
>the "same way"

The WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY TAUGHT. Those are your exact words.

>(Only a fool would assume that from that statement),

Ah, more name calling. I guess the entire wing chun populace on the
internet, and rec.martial-arts are all fools then. I'd call it your
inability to write sensibly and provide context that is the culprit.

>is correct
>because it was originally taught as an internal style..not as an external
>style. Which I see so prevelant in other schools, videos, books, etc..

Possibly because most books, videos, etc only cover the outer techniques.
Most of the internal nature of things is kept for actuall students.

>>I understand perfectly well. However the concepts of arts such as those
>>can be found in understanding of the Tao and Baqua and are found in many
>>arts. And many wing chun branches still teach it that way as well.
>
>I never said that it wasn't...you jumped to conclusions.

You claimed others teach it externally. Made no attempt to differentiate
between the fact that there are others that teach it internally as well.
Just promoted your little school as the one that teaches it internally.

>I forgive you.

Forgiveness from somebody as obviously un-egotistical and
un-self-promotional as you. Wow.

>>You mean you've seen
>>every style and branch of wing chun to determine this? Or is it another
>>case of "Sifu told me so"?
>
>Never said I did..

You made purposely broad based statements that most people with a high
school education in English know would not set up the proper conext
that you seem to say you implied.

>again you make up what you want to push an issue that is not
>being discussed. And your "Sifu told me so" comment is uncalled for.

Actually, it's very called for. So far you haven't even provided any
solid credentials, including in the system you currently study, to be
able to make the statements you're making.

>>To put words in the mouths of others is nonsense as well.
>
>Hopefully after today you will have learned that.

You related to Andrew Draheim?

>>Likewise, how long have you studied your branche's wing chun and other
>>branches to make such broadbase claims as to what is effective and
>>non-effective wing chun?
>
>I have seen them compared for myself as well as talked with others who have
>studied for years whose eyes become opened after a few lessons.

Spoken like a true cult member.

>
>It is too bad that you would rather tongue lash than discuss what I meant.

It is to bad, yes, I must be one of the lost souls who's eyes have been
"unopened".

>Instead you did chose to fight right away instead of dialoguing with me to see
>what it was that I meant.

Instead you chose to pop on to the newsgroup with sweeping generalizations
and statements you can't back up, alienating your self even further from
the already well established wing chun community here, including people
from your own system.

>You saddled "your high horse" my friend, and rode
>it with banners ablaze.

I'd rather ride one than be ridden like one.

>You acted before you found out all the information.

Which is the point that you are doing. You don't know squat about me
yet you've already deducted I don't know the "information", I'm an
idiot that can't properly read a halfbaked statement to get it's
context, etc. etc. You're on a real roll there.

>I am sorry you have been subjected to many insults about wing chun.....but
>please..it is not my fault.

The only thing people are being subjected to are your incoherent rantings.
It's very convenient to suddenly say "But that's not what I meant." when
you leave things general and broadbased to begin with.

>CK

[CK26M]

>It's very convenient to suddenly say "But that's not what I meant." when
>you leave things general and broadbased to begin with.

Ah.....but how you drew that I claimed that the school I attended was the sole
holder of the true system is something you fabricated. Just because I did not
give yours, or any other school their kudos, does not mean I defamed them.
Any good English teacher would tell you that you inference was unfounded.

You see I have studied with others in Chicago and I am friends with a broad
amount of Wing Chun practicioners in Chicago. If you are from Chicago then
you would recognize the names of Steve Swift, Philip Nearing, Rnady Williams
(whose school is no longer hear now), Brad Parkinson, and various others who
have been students of people such as Leung Ting and Augustine Fong.

My Sifu who knows Yip man's style as well as William Chung's style of Wing
Chun, and various others KNOWS that these other styles do not have much, if any
at all, of the internal aspects. Now we can either discuss this or you can
continue to rant and rave how I offended (which personally I do not care) other
Wing Chun Schools.

> So far you haven't even provided any
>solid credentials,

Yes I did you just have not paid attention.

>You claimed others teach it externally. Made no attempt to differentiate
>between the fact that there are others that teach it internally as well.
>Just promoted your little school as the one that teaches it internally.

Maybe others do, that is possible, but not around Chicago they don't. You
see, for that same reason Henry Leung would not come out in the open to tell
the Wing Chun community that they had an incomplete system because it would
shake up the community. But people know Leung knows, otherwise Willaim
Cheung, who opened his mouth and bad talked Leung, would never have backed down
when he met his challenge if he did not know that Leung had something that he
did not.

There is not one system out there that teaches everything that we teach and I
would offer you the opportunity to come and check us out for yourself and talk
with my sifu. You don't have to and I respect that. But until we have a
dialogue about the style, which by the way you have not even stated what you
take, I will contend that your foundation in Wing Chun, if that is what you
take, is built on sand and will fall if you faced an experienced Buddah Palm
Practicioner.

Other wing chun styles do not teach what we teach to their students. If they
did, this information would be readily available. If they do, they do it to a
select few, whereas my sifu teaches everyone fairly.

If you want to dialogue, tell me, when practicing the Wooden Dummy form, how do
you practice it? Describe to me nuances of how you do it. Also, how many
techniques are in the wooden dummy form? Have you heard of bone rolling?
Do you practice it? How do you apply it? What is the purpose of first form?
What powers are you developing?

You want to talk. let's talk. You want to argue, that's fine too. But until
you make me see otherwise there is only one school in Chicago that teaches Wing
Chun internally. If you can't answer my above mentioned questions then your
foundation is on sand my friend and you need to fix it. I say it in all
humility and I am offering this information to help and not harm.

As far as Jesse Glover is concerned....what Bruce taught him was based in Wing
Chun. So what he taught Jesse has it's root in Wing Chun. I am sorry that
you don't, and can't see that. By the way did you know that Jesse Glover
does, and did learn, a total wing chun system? When some people I know went
to Seatle to train with him, all they did was Chi Sao all the time. you know,
that pretty much sounds like Wing Chun to me. It may have his own spin to it,
but it has its roots in Wing Chun.

Also the people who i started out studying Wing Chun under were students of
Glover and they called it Wing Chun and they were the ones that brought him to
Chicago.

CK

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>>It's very convenient to suddenly say "But that's not what I meant." when
>>you leave things general and broadbased to begin with.
>
>Ah.....but how you drew that I claimed that the school I attended was the sole
>holder of the true system is something you fabricated.

Something you implied. I'm not the only one that came out with that
impression.

>Just because I did not
>give yours, or any other school their kudos, does not mean I defamed them.
>Any good English teacher would tell you that you inference was unfounded.

So you're an English teacher now? And you rate English teachers to.
Great.

>You see I have studied with others in Chicago and I am friends with a broad
>amount of Wing Chun practicioners in Chicago. If you are from Chicago

I am from Milwaukee.

>then
>you would recognize the names of Steve Swift, Philip Nearing, Rnady Williams
>(whose school is no longer hear now), Brad Parkinson, and various others who
>have been students of people such as Leung Ting and Augustine Fong.

Yes, I'm familiar with all of them.

>My Sifu who knows Yip man's style as well as William Chung's style of Wing
>Chun,

Now I know you're full of it. I'm an instructor under GM Cheung and his
internet rep. I can guarantee your Sifu has never had any sort of
certification from William Cheung, please feel free to present it and
I'd be happy to check to records to see if he was ever awarded an
instructors certificate. If not GM Cheung, which Sifu does he claim
to have studied under? I'd be happy to call them up as well.

>and various others KNOWS that these other styles do not have much, if any
>at all, of the internal aspects.

*chuckle* As I said, you've proved you don't know what you're talking
about.

>Now we can either discuss this or you can
>continue to rant and rave how I offended (which personally I do not care) other
>Wing Chun Schools.

It's obvious you don't care. Which is why it's laughable that you're
playing the "victim" in these conversations.

>> So far you haven't even provided any
>>solid credentials,
>
>Yes I did you just have not paid attention.

Where? You must "just have" a memory lapse. So far you've stated
a bunch of malarky of visiting with this and that person, blah blah blah.

>>You claimed others teach it externally. Made no attempt to differentiate
>>between the fact that there are others that teach it internally as well.
>>Just promoted your little school as the one that teaches it internally.
>
>Maybe others do, that is possible, but not around Chicago they don't. You
>see, for that same reason Henry Leung would not come out in the open to tell
>the Wing Chun community that they had an incomplete system because it would
>shake up the community. But people know Leung knows, otherwise Willaim
>Cheung, who opened his mouth and bad talked Leung, would never have backed down
>when he met his challenge if he did not know that Leung had something that he
>did not.

What kind of nonsense are you talking about? A) Show me where GM Cheung
supposedly badmouthed Leung, and b) What so called challenge? Now
you're just talking more nonsense. For someone who's been playing on all
this "oh, I just want to discuss" and starts personally attacking someone
who has nothing to do with this conversation with a bunch of nonsense,
you sound more like a parrot spewing out political heresay. More
of the "Sifu said so."

>There is not one system out there that teaches everything that we teach and I
>would offer you the opportunity to come and check us out for yourself and talk
>with my sifu. You don't have to and I respect that. But until we have a
>dialogue about the style, which by the way you have not even stated what you
>take, I will contend that your foundation in Wing Chun, if that is what you
>take, is built on sand and will fall if you faced an experienced Buddah Palm
>Practicioner.

Talk is cheap. I can be reached at Westminster Presbytarian on Tuesday
and Thursday nights, 1 block east of maryland on bellview. Milwaukee's
east side. I run classes from 7-8:30pm. The name is Marty Goldberg.
I'll be expecting you. That's not good enough, call my number it's
listed at the WWCKFA homepage and we'll set up a time for you to
"crumble my sand foundation". If your Sifu wants to try, fine, but
my beef isn't with him because I have no idea if he's making such
bullshit statements or you're coming up with this all on your own.
As such, I'm expecting you Chuck.

> Other wing chun styles do not teach what we teach to their students. If they
>did, this information would be readily available. If they do, they do it to a
>select few, whereas my sifu teaches everyone fairly.

As do many others.

>If you want to dialogue, tell me, when practicing the Wooden Dummy form, how do
>you practice it? Describe to me nuances of how you do it. Also, how many
>techniques are in the wooden dummy form? Have you heard of bone rolling?
>Do you practice it? How do you apply it? What is the purpose of first form?
> What powers are you developing?

Yadda yadda yadda. You want to learn how we do things, come and take
lessons like everyone else. As for our mook jong form, 180. 4 open hand
forms as well. As for SLT, I'm not going to sit here and lecture you
on the various jings. You overzealous beginners are just wonderful.

>You want to talk. let's talk. You want to argue, that's fine too. But until
>you make me see otherwise there is only one school in Chicago that teaches Wing
>Chun internally. If you can't answer my above mentioned questions then your
>foundation is on sand my friend and you need to fix it. I say it in all
>humility and I am offering this information to help and not harm.

Ah hogwash. Your offer is muddled in nonsense and crap, and "sifu said
so's".

>As far as Jesse Glover is concerned....what Bruce taught him was based in Wing
>Chun.

What Bruce taught him was based on a number of different things, one of
which was Wing Chun. While Jessie got the closest thing to it, as he
even says in his books, Bruce was very adamant that what he was teaching
was NOT wing chun.

>So what he taught Jesse has it's root in Wing Chun. I am sorry that
>you don't, and can't see that.

I'm sorry that Jessie doesn't see that either. So now you're telling
Jessie what Jessie is teaching?

>By the way did you know that Jesse Glover
>does, and did learn, a total wing chun system?

Jessie has had the opportunity to meet and train with a number of well
known wing chun masters. That does not change the fact that he has
stated what he teaches is not wing chun.
Would it interest you to know, Chuck, that the people affiliated with
Jessie consider you to have a shallow surface knowlege of what they
teach? Wonder how many other's you've "visited" feel that way.

>When some people I know went
>to Seatle to train with him, all they did was Chi Sao all the time. you know,
>that pretty much sounds like Wing Chun to me. It may have his own spin to it,
>but it has its roots in Wing Chun.

Mr. Glover uses his version of "Chi Sao" as a training vehicle. As he
states "The way I stick hands is different from how a wing chun guy
sticks hands and Bruce stuck hands. It's the way I stick hands that
is unique to me alone. Sticking hands is a training vehicle only.
From there I can teach any number of things, and the student can learn
usefull information."
It may share the name, but it's not the same thing. You went to one
seminar of his in '96. That hardly makes you an expert on what he
teaches.

>Also the people who i started out studying Wing Chun under were students of
>Glover and they called it Wing Chun and they were the ones that brought him to
>Chicago.

I'd be happy to email this to him,
as I'm sure he'd like to know that his students were falsly advertising.
Jessie exclusively calls his method Non-Classical Gung Fu.

>CK

[MokJong]

hi there;ck claims he studied with steve lee swift ??? if so,when ??i have a
small gym in glenview ill(24 miles north of downtown chicago)i been with sifu
swift for 10 years i recognizephil nearing brad parkson mike adams ken harish
ben moy phil ng,but i do not think i know you?i also know others like phil
glapion,even the jkd folks.hope to hear for you,a little history of you and
such. tony kariotis

[Russ Urquhart]

Martin Scott Goldberg wrote:

> ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:
>
>
> >and various others KNOWS that these other styles do not have much, if any
> >at all, of the internal aspects.
>
> *chuckle* As I said, you've proved you don't know what you're talking
> about.

As another student of TWC, let me also concur that TWC does address internal
aspects. (ANyone who has read the postings for previous seminars presented by GM
Cheung should have, from their content alone, been aware of these internal aspects.)

> >>You claimed others teach it externally. Made no attempt to differentiate
> >>between the fact that there are others that teach it internally as well.
> >>Just promoted your little school as the one that teaches it internally.
> >
> >Maybe others do, that is possible, but not around Chicago they don't. You
> >see, for that same reason Henry Leung would not come out in the open to tell
> >the Wing Chun community that they had an incomplete system because it would
> >shake up the community. But people know Leung knows, otherwise Willaim
> >Cheung, who opened his mouth and bad talked Leung, would never have backed down
> >when he met his challenge if he did not know that Leung had something that he
> >did not.
>

I'm now unclear as to the extent of your original comment. Do you feel that no other
Wing Chun style teaches internal aspect at all, IN THE CHICAGO AREA. Or do you
believe no other WC style teaches internal aspects (your style or anyone elses'),
ANYWHERE?

Also, if Leung does no something that no one else does, it would seem to benefit him
to share that knowledge with the rest of the WC community. Or at least to try to. GM
Cheung has/is attempting to show the style of Traditional Wing Chun that was shown
him by Yip Man.

Please elaborate on encounter between Leung and Gm Cheung.

> >As far as Jesse Glover is concerned....what Bruce taught him was based in Wing
> >Chun.
>
> What Bruce taught him was based on a number of different things, one of
> which was Wing Chun. While Jessie got the closest thing to it, as he
> even says in his books, Bruce was very adamant that what he was teaching
> was NOT wing chun.
>
>

> >By the way did you know that Jesse Glover
> >does, and did learn, a total wing chun system?
>
> Jessie has had the opportunity to meet and train with a number of well
> known wing chun masters. That does not change the fact that he has
> stated what he teaches is not wing chun.
> Would it interest you to know, Chuck, that the people affiliated with
> Jessie consider you to have a shallow surface knowlege of what they
> teach? Wonder how many other's you've "visited" feel that way.
>

As someone who also has attended a Jessie Glover Seminar. Let me add my 2 cents. I
gathered from Jessie glover the following:He calls what he teaches, as referred to
during the seminar, interchangeably as: non-classical gung fu, modified gung fu,
"what Bruce taught me"

While i believe Bruce taught Jessie a LOT of Wing Chun, as well as other things, I
don't think that Jessie believes that what he was taught is Wing Chun in its'
strictest sense. He does not call it Wing Chun and DOES make a distinction between
what he does and what a Wing Chun man would do. However, to muddy the waters
further, i recall that he did state that he felt that he was the first non-asian
individual in America to see/train Wing Chun.

Probably to be the most accurate, Jessie was probably learning Wing Chun for only as
long as Bruce was teaching strictly Wing Chun (what he knew of it). After that time,
i think it is accurate to say, as does jessie glover, that he was learning "what
bruce taught him" since bruce's knowledge was incomplete and he was examing/teaching
other things as well.

> >When some people I know went
> >to Seatle to train with him, all they did was Chi Sao all the time. you know,
> >that pretty much sounds like Wing Chun to me. It may have his own spin to it,
> >but it has its roots in Wing Chun.
>
> Mr. Glover uses his version of "Chi Sao" as a training vehicle. As he
> states "The way I stick hands is different from how a wing chun guy
> sticks hands and Bruce stuck hands. It's the way I stick hands that
> is unique to me alone. Sticking hands is a training vehicle only.
> From there I can teach any number of things, and the student can learn
> usefull information."
> It may share the name, but it's not the same thing. You went to one
> seminar of his in '96. That hardly makes you an expert on what he
> teaches.

I concur. In the seminar that i attended, we did a lot of sticking hands, and how he
does it IS different. He was also very clear that this was how HE did it!

> >Also the people who i started out studying Wing Chun under were students of
> >Glover and they called it Wing Chun and they were the ones that brought him to
> >Chicago.
>
> I'd be happy to email this to him,
> as I'm sure he'd like to know that his students were falsly advertising.
> Jessie exclusively calls his method Non-Classical Gung Fu.
>

If this is true, then i think that Jessie ought to know. He is a very laid back
individual but he is also very clear about what he teaches, what it is and what it
is NOT!

Russ

[CK26M]

>I'm now unclear as to the extent of your original comment. Do you feel that
>no other
>Wing Chun style teaches internal aspect at all, IN THE CHICAGO AREA. Or do
>you
>believe no other WC style teaches internal aspects (your style or anyone
>elses'),
>ANYWHERE?

Well at least you asked. I meant Chicago. How could I imply everywhere? I
thought that would be obvious.

>Also, if Leung does no something that no one else does, it would seem to
>benefit him
>to share that knowledge with the rest of the WC community. Or at least to try
>to. GM
>Cheung has/is attempting to show the style of Traditional Wing Chun that was
>shown
>him by Yip Man.

True....but as you see, I tried to start a dialogue and make people aware of
it, and look what happened? People want to fight about it. All I want to do
is talk. If that is what you want to do then fine. I am totally open to
that. I would like to find other schools that teach internally.

>As someone who also has attended a Jessie Glover Seminar. Let me add my 2
>cents. I
>gathered from Jessie glover the following:He calls what he teaches, as
>referred to
>during the seminar, interchangeably as: non-classical gung fu, modified gung
>fu,
>"what Bruce taught me"

Exactly, that is what he calls it and as I have said I have the utmost respect
for the man. He is a great person. I was just making the point that what he
teaches is based in Wing Chun. He calls it Non-Classical Gung Fu because he
has added to it.

>I concur. In the seminar that i attended, we did a lot of sticking hands, and
>how he
>does it IS different. He was also very clear that this was how HE did it!

Yes....I never said his was traditional Wing Chun. I know it is His way.

>If this is true, then i think that Jessie ought to know. He is a very laid
>back
>individual but he is also very clear about what he teaches, what it is and
>what it
>is NOT!

What was advertised to teach was Non-Classical Gung Fu. But what was shown
was all interpretations of wing chun. So I considered it to be like a wing
chun seminar.

CK

[Rene Ritchie]

Hi,

CK26M wrote:

> Marty,
>
> It seems to be that some people here wish to rush in and tongue lash without a
> thought. Now what I wrote was meant to spark discussion and although you
> started out insulting, discussion has still been sparked.
>
> My teacher's teacher is Henry Leung. Henry Leung is in his 70's now.

I've spoken with several people from Henry Leung's style and think a few of them
are very knowledgeable and some seem (at least from the little I've seen) to have
very good skill.

> He was
> a monk and the top disciple of a monk in China. So let me do some math here.
> If he is 70, and his teacher lived to be a bit older, that would make it close
> to 150 years thus far. Since H. Leung's teacher had a teacher....well.....I
> think you can see what I mean.

With all due respect, the above has not yet been shown to be historically accurate.
Leung sifu seems to have given many different versions of his history out to many
different people over the years (that he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, that he
learned from his uncle, Leung Bik, that he learned from the late Shaolin master Xu
Yun (Gao Jee Fut Sao), etc.). Due to all the different stories, and the many
apparent coflicts when comparing his dates with known events, I think it may be
safe to say that at this point only Leung Chi-Man sifu knows for sure where his
system comes from and he hasn't seen fit to release that information yet.

FWIW, based on what little I've seen and discussed, Leung sifu's art seems to have
a very firm Wing Chun foundation and include some elements of Southern Mantis and
perhaps Fu Family Internals (Leung Yee). His Wing Chun appears to contain elements
of the Chan Wah-Shun branch (in terms of characteristic movements) with a few
traces of Yip Man Wing Chun (maybe only recently used- such as a hanging dummy, the
use of the name Baat Jaam Dao, and elimination of one Sao Kuen in the Siu Nim/Lien
Tao, etc.)

> After citing that lineage, one that I can give names to if need be, let's
> discuss your other point. Wing Chun, without the internal elements, is just a
> hard style. Perhaps I did not cleary explain myself, but I did not mean that
> Tai Chi, Ba gua, Hsing I,(Which I was using only a few as examples to
> illustrate the point about principles) etc....were taught with wing chun
> originally, but that the principles that are in these arts were taught.

Truth be known, "modern" Foshan Wing Chun is very different then old
style/ancient/ancestral Wing Chun (which looks more like White Crane or Hung Ga).
Martial arts improve over the generations and good sifu always give something back
to their arts. In the end, a lot of CMA have similar principles. There's a big
overlap between Wing Chun, Southern Mantis, etc. Taiji, Bagua, and Xingyi also have
similarities in concept although the realization differs more.

> The powers in these arts, such as drilling, coiling, whipping, swallowing and
> spitting, riding another's energy, etc...are supposed to be in Wing Chun.
> Without it, it is incomplete.

Rise, Fall, Spit, Swallow are fairly standard in Fujian derived martial arts. Hung
Ga, Wing Chun, Bak Mei, etc. make use of much of the above.

> Wing Chun has Wood, fire, metal, water, and earth in it. Without these powers
> you can't use it. To claim otherwise in nonsense Marty because that leaves an
> ineffective Wing Chun system.

Actually, it doesn't matter if you use old Taoist terminology or elaborate names
such as the above, or modern WCK terminology. In the old days you needed to hide
your style with esoteric names, but its not that vital anymore. If you think of
Leung Yee (Two Motions) or of Tan Fook (Disperse & Control), as long as you
understand and can employ the concept, you'll probably be fine. Good is good, bad
is bad, and you can find plenty of both in almost any lineage.

> I am sorry if I led you to believe that the styles were taught along with Wing
> Chun, that was not my intention. I merely meant the principles and used those
> styles to illustrate my point. I am sorry if I did not specify that.
>
> I would love to dialogue on this further with you. There should be no
> misunderstandings between us.

Nice to see more Fut Sao people on the 'net!

--
Rene Ritchie
mailto:re...@sandtechnology.com mailto:re...@wingchunkuen.com
http://www.sandtechnology.com http://www.wingchunkuen.com

[Rene Ritchie]

Hi,

> >My Sifu who knows Yip man's style as well as William Chung's style of Wing
> >Chun,

James Cama (sp?). Spoke to him the phone once, a long time ago, and he seemed like a
nice guy. If its him, please send my rgds,

> Now I know you're full of it. I'm an instructor under GM Cheung and his
> internet rep. I can guarantee your Sifu has never had any sort of
> certification from William Cheung, please feel free to present it and
> I'd be happy to check to records to see if he was ever awarded an
> instructors certificate. If not GM Cheung, which Sifu does he claim
> to have studied under? I'd be happy to call them up as well.

Never discount seminars, it probably shouldn't be phrased as "learning under"
(unless special circumstances exist), but I think lots of people refer to it in that
way.. Henry Leung sifu is based in NYC and Cheung sifu and many others have passed
through.

> >and various others KNOWS that these other styles do not have much, if any
> >at all, of the internal aspects.
>
> *chuckle* As I said, you've proved you don't know what you're talking
> about.

What are considered internal aspects? Labels are 99% BS anyway. Nothing should be
theory, just proven concept, and even then, the concept can be great, but the
realization severely lacking in some people.

> >Maybe others do, that is possible, but not around Chicago they don't. You
> >see, for that same reason Henry Leung would not come out in the open to tell
> >the Wing Chun community that they had an incomplete system because it would
> >shake up the community.

I think Leung sifu wouldn't do this because he knows how diverse and substantial WCK
really is. None of the major branches are missing anything. Some have refined their
systems, some have elaborated upon them. Leung Jan's final teachings in Gulao system
don't even include forms anymore. Pao Fa Lien, by contrast, have evolved into 10
forms and 4 dummies. You could learn each and be "complete" or "incomplete", since
its up to the individual in the end.

> But people know Leung knows, otherwise Willaim
> >Cheung, who opened his mouth and bad talked Leung, would never have backed down
> >when he met his challenge if he did not know that Leung had something that he
> >did not.

Unless you personally witnessed this, its probably just another MA myth (sifu
says...) and can unless documented on unaltered video, can only cause damage to both
William Chueng sifu and Henry Leung sifu, both of whom probably would wince at
hearing this story in public, not to mention the whole WCK community who are,
hopefully like myself, sick to death of petty squables. People who never learned a
day of WCK can probably kick some impressive WCK butt, and vice versa, so who cares
about challenges anyway?

> What kind of nonsense are you talking about? A) Show me where GM Cheung
> supposedly badmouthed Leung, and b) What so called challenge? Now
> you're just talking more nonsense. For someone who's been playing on all
> this "oh, I just want to discuss" and starts personally attacking someone
> who has nothing to do with this conversation with a bunch of nonsense,
> you sound more like a parrot spewing out political heresay. More
> of the "Sifu said so."
>
> >There is not one system out there that teaches everything that we teach and I
> >would offer you the opportunity to come and check us out for yourself and talk
> >with my sifu. You don't have to and I respect that. But until we have a
> >dialogue about the style, which by the way you have not even stated what you
> >take, I will contend that your foundation in Wing Chun, if that is what you
> >take, is built on sand and will fall if you faced an experienced Buddah Palm
> >Practicioner.

Fut Sao is based on Henry Leung's experience and is his system. Same as TWC is based
on Cheung sifu's and is his system. Nobody has a monopoly.

--

[CK26M]

Marty,

O.K. now, listen my little uninformed man. Notice how I said little. That is
because you are so wound up around your self as well as your "status" with WC
that you won't listen.

>Now I know you're full of it. I'm an instructor under GM Cheung and his
>internet rep. I can guarantee your Sifu has never had any sort of
>certification from William Cheung, please feel free to present it and
>I'd be happy to check to records to see if he was ever awarded an
>instructors certificate. If not GM Cheung, which Sifu does he claim
>to have studied under? I'd be happy to call them up as well.
>

O.K. now....my sifu studied under Philip Redman who was WC East Coast rep in
83. Although he has since then been kicked out due to a drug problem does not
negate the fact that he was certified to teach by WC himself.

>What kind of nonsense are you talking about? A) Show me where GM Cheung
>supposedly badmouthed Leung, and b) What so called challenge? Now
>you're just talking more nonsense.

Nonsense is what your teacher has filled you with. I will draw your attention
to a seminar WC did in Manhattan around 83-84. He rolled hands with almost
everyone there. One of those people he rolled hands with was James Cama.
After Chi Sauing with him WC noted that he did it well but that he thought his
teacher probably could not fight. James asked him to show him what he meant
by that because "you sifu's" Chi Sau did not impress him. He would not do it.
The next day, James Cama came back to the seminar with Leung and was turned
away by Redman and other people by gun point. By the way, if you know
anything about the internal arts, Ken Fish also validated this.

You do not know traditional Wing Chun, nor does your sifu teach it. It is his
own creation. Even WC cousin, Hawkin Chung has stated that he should take
credit for what he teaches because it is not what Yip Man taught.

>you sound more like a parrot spewing out political heresay. More
>of the "Sifu said so."

You have been taught well. You spout out the same bs that your teacher does.
WC is all about personal gain and nothing else. And your blind following of
him is hilarious. You make me laugh and it is your loss....you could have
learned something.

>Talk is cheap. I can be reached at Westminster Presbytarian on Tuesday
>and Thursday nights, 1 block east of maryland on bellview. Milwaukee's

Ah......A church boy....it figures.

>east side. I run classes from 7-8:30pm. The name is Marty Goldberg.
>I'll be expecting you. That's not good enough, call my number it's
>listed at the WWCKFA homepage and we'll set up a time for you to
>"crumble my sand foundation". If your Sifu wants to try, fine, but
>my beef isn't with him because I have no idea if he's making such
>bullshit statements or you're coming up with this all on your own.
>As such, I'm expecting you Chuck

You will be waiting for me? Spoken like someone who feels their manhood has
been threatened. How old are you?

You would like to try my sifu? What is the matter with you? Was your
childhood raising lacking in the manners department?

>Yadda yadda yadda

I am sorry to see your vocabulary does not reach far beyond Seinfeld.

>You overzealous beginners are just wonderful.

You blind followers are a pity.

>Ah hogwash. Your offer is muddled in nonsense and crap, and "sifu said
>so's".

Sounds like you have you and I mixed up. The offer was a serious and honest
one. You made it into this and I am gonna stop it. You are not worth
talking with because you don't know how to hold a civil conversation or
disagree with someone without tossing insults. You are presumptive and have a
tendency to jump to conclusions. Is that characteristic of your martial arts
as well?

By the way...about me rating English teachers. I can do that, because I am.

CK

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:
Subject: Re: CHICAGO WING CHUN

>Marty,
>
>O.K. now, listen my little uninformed man. Notice how I said little. That is
>because you are so wound up around your self as well as your "status" with WC
>that you won't listen.

Never said anything about "status" just that you're full of it.
In fact the only time status was brought up was when you start trying to
say what GM Cheung is teaching when a) You never learned it and are going
on heresay and b) Someone with no credentials themselves are spewing it.
I can easily call up Bilal and get Mr. Cama's supposed status. But
since we're all just blind followers for dissagreeing with you and
pointing out where you're incorrect (something you claim your doing but
gee whiz just can't seem to accept it when the shoe's on your foot), it's
not worth the time.

>>Now I know you're full of it. I'm an instructor under GM Cheung and his
>>internet rep. I can guarantee your Sifu has never had any sort of
>>certification from William Cheung, please feel free to present it and
>>I'd be happy to check to records to see if he was ever awarded an
>>instructors certificate. If not GM Cheung, which Sifu does he claim
>>to have studied under? I'd be happy to call them up as well.
>>
>O.K. now....my sifu studied under Philip Redman who was WC East Coast rep in
>83.

Anybody can represent. Bilal (aka Philip Remond who is now in Detroit) was
not a SIFU. People were representing the WWCKFA, which has nothing to
do with their own personal instruction status. There's been many many
people that have "represented" their area at some time or another,
regardless of an actuall status. One has nothing to do with the other.

>Although he has since then been kicked out due to a drug problem does not
>negate the fact that he was certified to teach by WC himself.

He was not certified by him till much later, AND he is not kicked out.
Where do you get your garbage info from? I know. "Sifu said so".
You'll easily see he is listed as a current instructor at our
homepage and I talk to him every so often through email. Nice try.

>>What kind of nonsense are you talking about? A) Show me where GM Cheung
>>supposedly badmouthed Leung, and b) What so called challenge? Now
>>you're just talking more nonsense.
>
>Nonsense is what your teacher has filled you with.

Better than the crap you're being told.

>I will draw your attention
>to a seminar WC did in Manhattan around 83-84. He rolled hands with almost
>everyone there. One of those people he rolled hands with was James Cama.
>After Chi Sauing with him WC noted that he did it well but that he thought his
>teacher probably could not fight.

Oh bullcrap. He never makes such statements at seminars where someone
is paying money to attend. You loose attende's that way. Secondly
if this is what Cama is saying, he's full of it.

>James asked him to show him what he meant
>by that because "you sifu's" Chi Sau did not impress him. He would not do it.
> The next day, James Cama came back to the seminar with Leung and was turned
>away by Redman and other people by gun point.

Hahaha. I'll have to give Bilal a call on that one and have a good laugh.
That's funny. Boy, no woner even people in Buddha hand don't think
highly of Cama. So many lies.

>>By the way, if you know
>>anything about the internal arts, Ken Fish also validated this.
>
>You do not know traditional Wing Chun, nor does your sifu teach it.

More and more with the insults. Oh well, easy to say it from behind a
keyboard kid.

>It is his
>own creation.

So says your ill-informed opinion.
Most people, including Hawkins Cheung who I doubt you have ever met, do
not believe it's made up. It would be impossible to make up the ammount
of detail that is in TWC, and you'd have to be a genius. What most
believe is that the "history" of it is made up and that is what Hawkins is
refering to as his "mischief".

>Even WC cousin, Hawkin Chung

What a moron. They're not cousins. Who told you that? Or did you
read that mistake the author put in that Bruce Lee "Fighting Spirit" book?
the one where Hawkins says it's just GM Cheung's mischief?

>has stated that he should take
>credit for what he teaches because it is not what Yip Man taught.

Since just about everyone was taught differently, including Hawkins,
you're not making much sense.

Secondly, the author of the book said that, not Hawkins Cheung.

All this second hand info you're getting is pretty obvious.

>>
>>you sound more like a parrot spewing out political heresay. More
>>of the "Sifu said so."
>
>You have been taught well. You spout out the same bs that your teacher does.
> WC is all about personal gain and nothing else. And your blind following of
>him is hilarious. You make me laugh and it is your loss....you could have
>learned something.

Ah yes, see the way, join your cult. You've never met the man and are
going on heresay but you're lecturing about blind following. You're
really winning over a lot of converts.

>>Talk is cheap. I can be reached at Westminster Presbytarian on Tuesday
>>and Thursday nights, 1 block east of maryland on bellview. Milwaukee's
>
>Ah......A church boy....it figures.

Actually I'm jewish little one. I rent space there, not that it's any
of your business. You need a little work on your context as well. Last
name Goldberg and I'm a church goer? And you claim to be an English
teacher? Heh.

>>east side. I run classes from 7-8:30pm. The name is Marty Goldberg.
>>I'll be expecting you. That's not good enough, call my number it's
>>listed at the WWCKFA homepage and we'll set up a time for you to
>>"crumble my sand foundation". If your Sifu wants to try, fine, but
>>my beef isn't with him because I have no idea if he's making such
>>bullshit statements or you're coming up with this all on your own.
>>As such, I'm expecting you Chuck
>
>You will be waiting for me? Spoken like someone who feels their manhood has
>been threatened. How old are you?

You're the one that's throwing epitapths and such saying I should come
down and see what real wing chun is like and have my foundation on sand
crumbled etc. Then talking a lot of nonsense about stuff you have no
first hand experience with by your own admission, thereby proving the
original statement of you being nothing but a "Sifu says so" parrot. You
make statements you don't want to back up.

>You would like to try my sifu? What is the matter with you? Was your
>childhood raising lacking in the manners department?

Was your sense of logic and understanding screwed up at birth when the
doctor obviously dropped you? You haven't showed manners or respect from
day one on here (by your own words you said you didn't care) and you
expect others to show it back?

>>You overzealous beginners are just wonderful.
>
>You blind followers are a pity.

You overzealous beginners are you wonderful.

>>Ah hogwash. Your offer is muddled in nonsense and crap, and "sifu said
>>so's".
>
>Sounds like you have you and I mixed up. The offer was a serious and honest
>one. You made it into this and I am gonna stop it. You are not worth
>talking with because you don't know how to hold a civil conversation or
>disagree with someone without tossing insults. You are presumptive and have a
>tendency to jump to conclusions. Is that characteristic of your martial arts
>as well?

Mister, you're the one that's coming on here spreading a bunch of bull
and giving the "what me?" attitude when people call you on it. You call
people blind followers for not agreeing with what you're saying and yet
you're doing the same thing you're calling people blind followers for.

>By the way...about me rating English teachers. I can do that, because I am.
>
>CK

Heh. Right. Dream on.

By the way, talked to Jessie. He thinks your comments are hilarious. And
the people you worked out with did not learn his system and were not
certified by him. They visited a few times, did a few seminars, and
that was it. Seems to me you're spending your time with a lot of people
who aren't certified for much, never really getting certified for anything
your self either, then going around trying to "spark discussion" based on
heresay on these uncertified topics. Maybe you're just certifiable.
Either way, everything you've stated about my art and the crap Cama is
talking is and has been easily dissproven already. So unless you're
willing to back up your tough talk and twisting views, this topic is going
nowhere. You and Cama know where to find me, and he's being brought in to
this because YOU brought William Cheung in to this and CAMA is the source
of the info according to you. So don't act so shocked and start asking
people's age kid. You reap what you sow.

[jr96...@tiac.net]

Hello,

I was recently searching the web martial arts sites and found this
thread on Buddha Hand WCK. I would like to help out Chuck with his
information and save some face for our clan.

1: It seems like whom ever you learned from has not done "any" research
into Henry Leung's stories. I noticed you still buy the fabled Monk Hsu
Yun (aka Gao Jee Fut Sao) BS. GJFS was an abbot famous for restoring
temples thoughout southern China and travelled from place to place on a
regular basis. Leung Sifu is supposed to be from Gwangzhou (Canton) and
GJFS was only there during one of his stops in his career. More info.
later if you like!

2: In Leung Sifu's early years of teaching he would mention that the art
he taught was the Leung Pai WCK and had nothing to do with GJFS. He did
say he was the student and nephew to Leung Bick but his historical
information on Jan and Bick are inconsistent with dates from many many
practitioners from that lineage. Ex: Leung Sifu says that Jan died at
the age of 86. Leung Jan's Gulao Village disciples all say he died at
the age of 76 in Gulao Village, Heshan. Ex: Leung Sifu states that
Leung Bick is alive and well living in Canton making WCK equipment and
that his Jong's were sent here from him. The Jong's are set up on the
Hanging wall mount which comes from Yip Man and the Jee Shim WCK people.
If Leung Bick was living and making euipment in Canton he should be
easily found seeing that he is such a well know figure and if he does
make equipment who does he make it for? So, the art may very well be the
Leung Family style of WCK but chances are it is his family and not the
famed Dr. Jan's.

3: Leung Sifu has told people over the years that he was the last
disciple of Chan Wah Sun. Yip Man was the last disciple of Chan Sifu and
Chan was reported to has died a few months after he began. For your
information Leung Sifu has an alter in his apartment with the picture of
his real sifu on it that is most definetely not the monk and only he
knows who he really learned from.

4: You mentioned that our WCK is internal. All good WCK is internal.
The problem is that you have not been exposed to anything. There is good
and bad in everything. I suggest you do some reasearch and searching
before you make such a statement.

5: You failed to mention why we have such a heavy emphasis placed on the
internal. Do you know that our style has outside influence in it? Ex:
Leung Sifu is a practitioner of Leung Yee Chuan! Leung Yee was created
by Fu Shen Zong and Fu was a very famous Ba Gwa practitioner in the
Canton area. (Ba Gwa element in FSWCK connection) Ex: Do you know Leung
Sifu is a practitioner of two forms of Taiji? (Taiji element in FSWCK
connection) Ex: Do you know that Leung Sifu was friends with Lum Sang
Sifu and taught a Two Man Form called Sup Ba Dim? (South Mantis Element
in FSWCK connection) Ex: Do you know that Fut Ga Kuen was created in
Canton and the name Fut Sao is the forth form of Chu Gar Mantis? (More
South Mantis and name connection). I could go on and on but I will stop
here with that thread. The reason I mention these things is because you
noticed a heavy internal influence in our style and yes it's true but you
need to look into what our Master has trained over the years and the
styles in his area that his family would have had access to. Our WCK has
many drills and terminology that can be connected to those arts but I
will leave them for later discussion. I do not believe that Henry
created this art but I am sure he has helped it.

6: The name of our knife form was called Baat Jham Do by Henry. The name
Baat Jham Do was created by Yip Man but Henry originally said the name of
the knife form was called the Pig Skinning Knives! Speaking of knives you
must know that Henry taught people to flip the knives and that WCK
originally did not flip the knives and only recelty started to.

7: The book that Leung Sifu wrote has a historical section that was
alterred sligthly to fit his fabled lineage in was an exact copy of Au
Soy Gee's novel. I am sure he probally didn't think that book would ever
make it to the states and his story would have been solid but that has
also been proved inaccurate.

I do not want to continue because I may give people the wrong ideas
about my feelings towards this art. Even though I have done research
into my art, to find the truth/lies in statements and stories, as well as
other WCK arts I still find many fine qualities/qualified instructors in
this WCK and that is why I continue my learning in it. I would like to
say that Leung Sifu is quite skilled and has turned out many fine martial
artists over the years. The art was not taught in mass production and
it's properties stood intact. To name a few of his early students;
Raphael Salesedo, Santo Barbalace, Phil (Bilal) Redman, Willy Arroyo, Ken
Fish, and others. Most of these people still practice Henry's WCK or
have gone on to learn other arts to expand their knowledge. I would like
to say I have found good and bad in every art that I have ever witnessed
but I look at them with an open eye. To those of you that have recieved
a sour taste towards Fut Sao WCK please realize that their are some of us
that enjoy our art and respect others arts! We should all do the best we
can for WCK so that it may blossom for future generations.

P.S. I would like to extend an apology to Marty Goldberg from the Fut Sao
Clan for having to experience this bad thread on FSWCK.

Regards,

Jim Roselando

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[MokJong]

hi out there;who are you ck26m???you claim to studied under steve swift,if so
you should have learn the three treasures(jieng,shen,and chi.)also wai dan chi
kung(on the wall bag training)and net dan chi kung(in the first section of
snt.)fa jing(attacking energy)plus knee and elbow energies,not to forget some
other
likeexploding,directing,connecting,controlling,sticking.listeningdrilling,
springy,and ect....as for the five elements,six healing soungs ,the question is
why mystify wing chun???yip man wanted to clear the path of wing chun to
become simply not to mystify the art.doing the first est(snt)you should of
learn rooting jing,sinking jing the normal and reverse breathing. the heng/ha
and ding/dao sounds.question is what or how can this help a person with a knife
or gun.yes in the long time for health,maybe.we here have compare peng jing
with bong sau and lau sau,lap sauing with rope pull(in tai chi pull
downward)and shoulder strke with strike with shoulder.but again why cinfuse
people and mystify the art???by the way,why don't you sign your whole name??
tony kariotis ps i started martial arts in 68 in chicago and i'm still learning.

[CK26M]

Tony,

You can find a post on the newsgroup as well. But if you are the same Tony
that I talked to on the phone awhile back when Iwas searching for some
equipment, I must say that you did not have such an attitude then. Perhaps it
was because I wanted to buy something from you.

Now Tony, all those powers you mentioned are wonderful and they are mystifying
to many people. Perhaps good martial artists will come up and take some of
the mystery out of the art and make it more understandable and less frustrating
to those attempting to learn it. I hope that you are one of those types of
teachers.

I study Fut Sao and why would you like to know my full name? You want to send
me a card? I hope your intentions are not to drum up garbage with Marty. If
it is, your actions are pretentious and very upsetting. It adds to the
already political arena that involves wing chun.

If not, then you should understand the purpose of advertisements and not read
things into it like Marty did.

I will say it again...there is a school in Chicago that teaches Wing Chun
internally the way it was meant to be taught (meaning taught as an internal
system). This does not suggest that there are not others schools that do.
Now, if you find some problem in what is stated there then I suggest you not
respond to me. Because youw ould be purposely reading things into something
that are not there.

CK

[Wylycoyte]

Somebody give me a scorecard. Im very confused...

[CK26M]

The only problem is..........what are we scoring on? Who has the ability to
throw things out of context? I think I would lose then.

[MokJong]

hi all and ck;i run across an old article by james cama which claims that the
buddha hand"its a complete style blending internal and external technique and
exercises.included in the system are chi kung,power absorption,chi transfrence
and iron-body control"james cama claims to be taughted by moy yat and hong hei
leung.this is a contradiction to your statement that buddha hand is an internal
art(the way wing chun should be taught.)since you never studied under steve lee
swift how can you know if he teaches internal/external,you stated that all/or
most of the chicago schools are external.??i feel that this confuses the future
student of wing chun.i don't sell anything,yes a make jongs for the students
and my kung fu friends in other sytle(hung gar,praying mantis ,choy lat fut,
because they can find jongs .)as for wing chun lessons, most student here are
from word of mouth.as for your name,its seems you are hiding something.hard to
have a true and honest discussion with someone who hides his name.to quoe
another article for an seminar by wang kiu,lok yiu,tsui sheung, and wong shun
leung"don't be fooled!wing chun is scienific in every way.it reliies on economy
of motion.a consistent locical theory and proper body mechanics.ther on secret
wing chun footwork,no secret death touch,no lightening hand,and no chi that
allows you to stand on eggs." simply put there no mysticism in wing chun.chi
exist yes,but not the way most see it.as for the knife and gun thing that just
a reality of street combat.i was not put up the write this by anybody as you
subjected.no marty,no close=range combat(ken zekos?)and no randy williams.if
you think i copping an attitude,thats your opinionas for comparing me to
marty,i don't know marty(never touch hands with him.)yes i know him though his'
wing chun list.some of the guys here went to a william cheung seminar,just like
other go to chi wing fong's seminar,or anyother seminars.well its time to go
train now.untill next time all; gung hei fat choy(happy chinese new years 4696
the years of the tiger.)anybody call e mail me at MOK...@AOL.COM or call 847
724 0233 and ask for TONY kariotis ps if anybody wants a copy of the articles i
quoted i will faxs them on a regular faxs,sorry i have no scanner yet(for the
computer)my faxs # is 824 486 1908

[CK26M]

Tony,

Yes I have talked with you before. Now as for the article, I have it right
here infront of me. James Cama presently learns from Henry Leung in New York
and that can be validated. Besides do you think that Leung's birth name is
really Henry? Come on, look at the name again...you can draw a conclusion on
your own.

The blending of internal and external techniques in which you are talking about
does not mean that the system is not internal. We all have to strengthen the
vessles in which the chi flows. You have to have strong ligaments and tendons
in any art. This does not contradict my statement. You took a line from an
article and took it out of context. You made an inference drawing from
information that you know. You do not know, nor have you experienced, Fut Sau
Wing Chung and therefore can not make that statement.

As far as the Steve Swift thing goes, I will tell you for the last time that I
did not learn under Swift, but my fellow students in my school have. My sifu
has also studied undere people who were certified instructors of Willima Chueng
and other Wing Chun Stylists. My sifu and I have discussed these issues at
length and he holds to this. He has also demonstrated it.

Hiding something? I think not. If you want to know who I am then come to
the school. Just because your name appears in the Dojo directory of Kung Fu
magazines, does not mean that I wish to publicize mine. I do not run nor
operate a school, nor do I sell something. All I did was pass on a "word of
mouth" to other people on here who are looking to study wing chung. A of Wing
Chun that I feel is better than what is around. Yes that is my opinion, and I
will hold to it. I do not care about giving others their kudos in
realtionship to other forms of the art. I have found something good and I
wanted to share it with people in Chicago.
I am not into politics, I am into training. I am not looking for challenges,
which is what I have recieved, but rather collaboration. But I see that the
politics of the people in Wing Chun prevents that.

Of course Wing Chun is scientific. Chi is a scientific part of it as well.
To deny that is to deny 4 thousand years of Chinese culture. It only seems
mystical to people because we still lack the vocabulary to converse about it.

Sorry Tony if you took all this wrong. I respect you and other wing chun
stylists as well as other martial artists. But the same reason I am studying
Buddah Palm Wing Chun, is the same reason why I will continue to study it.
Because I feel it is the best style of Wing Chun around. This does not imply
that others do not hold insights that I may find helpful, it just means that I
believe it to be a better sytem.

Chuck

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>Tony,

>
>As far as the Steve Swift thing goes, I will tell you for the last time that I
>did not learn under Swift, but my fellow students in my school have.

Which is what of course licences you to make the statements of what it
does or does not contain as you did in your earlyer posts. Oh, I know,
you didn't "mean it that way".

> My sifu
>has also studied undere people who were certified instructors of Willima Chueng
>and other Wing Chun Stylists.

Hogwash. They most certainly were not certified instructors at the time
he supposedly learned under them. Boy, first you say he learned under
William Cheung, then you say under certified instructors under him
in the early 80's. None of the New York people were certified to
teach then. The most senior student of his here in the U.S.
wasn't even certified until the mid-80's. Secondly, you have not stated
who he supposedly studied under. I'd be happy to check with them on just
what Mr. Cama's status really was.

>My sifu and I have discussed these issues at
>length and he holds to this. He has also demonstrated it.

Hehehe. I can sit here and demonstrate Buddah Hand to my students.
Doesn't mean I actually know it, because they have nothing to compare
it to. Anybody can learn a few moves and "demonstrate" it to their
students.

>I am not into politics, I am into training.

That's another good laugh.

>Chuck

[MokJong]

hi chuck;as to respnose to you,first according to the article,buddha hand comes
from shaolin.shaolin is an external/internal art.10 years of external and 8
years of internal training.i didn't take a line from anarticle and took it out
of context.i quoted james words.since i haven't trained in buddha hand and you
haven't trained in swift's/simon lau/yip chun/yip ching's wing chun .we both
can't make comments on what they teaches.i completed the training with
swift.other haven't.i have nothing against your sytle of wing chun,but some of
your comments i do.as for hiding your name,why?my sifu put my,phil glapion,nad
his school four years ago.i didn't know this untill recently.swift 's school is
listed in new york,but he in tampa florida.as for using your sifu really
name,what the beef.i using his really name.not his english name.cool your
heels.remember most martials arts are internal/external,did you see the a&e
kung fu show last night??true tai chi chuan?tai ji quan,pakua/bagua,hsing
-i/xing -yi and li hop po fa(6 harmoneis)(sp?)are internal arts.so why not
train in these arts.wai lun choi(sp) waysun liao,and yu cheng huang are great
teachers also,in these arts.sorry if you take this the wrong way.as for coming
to future events for your school,that's cool.juinform us and i spread the word.
tony akriotis allways looking and allways learning.thank you

[CK26M]

Marty,

You are talking nonsense again. I never said that he learned from Cheung.
Show me where I said that? He did learn from his brother-in-law, Philip
Redman, who was his east cost rep in 83. Go ahead and verify that he wasn't.

>I'd be happy to check with them on just
>what Mr. Cama's status really was.

His status with whom? I hope you are not going to say that I saifd he studied
under Cheung too. I would love for you to show me that.

>I can sit here and demonstrate Buddah Hand to my students.

Yeah, that is really joke.

>Anybody can learn a few moves and "demonstrate" it to their
>students.

Yeah, but the difference is he knows the whole system.

>>I am not into politics, I am into training.
>
>That's another good laugh.

The only thing funny is your insistance on trying to defend yourself from an
attack that was never launched.

CK

[CK26M]

>hi chuck;as to respnose to you,first according to the article,buddha hand
>comes
>from shaolin.shaolin is an external/internal art.10 years of external and 8
>years of internal training

I have the article right here and it says nothing about 10years of external and
8 of internal.

>as for using your sifu really
>name,what the beef.i using his really name.not his english name

Because Henry is his Amercian name.

>did you see the a&e
>kung fu show last night??true tai chi chuan?tai ji quan,pakua/bagua,hsing
>-i/xing -yi and li hop po fa(6 harmoneis)(sp?)

Oh? You saw it on t.v. huh? Man, Buddah Palm Wing Chun has the principles
of all the above mentioned arts. I need not discourse with you on this again
do I?

>to future events for your school,that's cool.juinform us and i spread the
>word.
> tony akriotis allways looking and allways learning.thank you
>

I will do that.

CK

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>Marty,
>
>
>You are talking nonsense again.

Just showing what kind of nonsense you're still spewing.

>I never said that he learned from Cheung.
>Show me where I said that?

You initially said he learned William Cheung's system and that it had
nothing to offer internally. When questioned you finally stated that
he learned from Bilal. Just as I stated.

>He did learn from his brother-in-law, Philip
>Redman, who was his east cost rep in 83. Go ahead and verify that he wasn't.

As you are being told again, a representative has NOTHING to do with
teaching certification. It is a political position for people that
wish to organize seminars and act as a means of communications for
GM Cheung in the U.S. as Bilal was doing at that time. Anybody can be
appointed a rep, even if they just started learning yesterday.

>>I'd be happy to check with them on just
>>what Mr. Cama's status really was.
>
>His status with whom? I hope you are not going to say that I saifd he studied
>under Cheung too. I would love for you to show me that.

I'd be happy to check with Bilal on what Mr. Cama's supposed status was.
Since nobody over here had completed their training at that time period
(most were not even close to half way) it's ludicrous for Mr. Cama
to make such statements and even more so for you to present them as
some sort of validation as to William Cheung's system not teaching internal
or not teaching it from day one and holding it back as you claimed as well.
The very idea that he is being used as some sort of authority as to
what my system has is laughable.

>>I can sit here and demonstrate Buddah Hand to my students.
>
>Yeah, that is really joke.

Glad you can laugh at your Sifu so easily.

>>
>>Anybody can learn a few moves and "demonstrate" it to their
>>students.
>
>Yeah, but the difference is he knows the whole system.

Or so you say. How would you know if he knows a "whole system"
if you've never seen William Cheung's system to begin with by
your own admission and never studied under someone that is certified
to teach it? Just going by Sifu says so again.

>>>I am not into politics, I am into training.
>>
>>That's another good laugh.
>
>The only thing funny is your insistance on trying to defend yourself from an
>attack that was never launched.

Oh, I'm just trying to spark discussion. You're interpreting it wrong.

>CK

[CK26M]

>You initially said he learned William Cheung's system and that it had
>nothing to offer internally. When questioned you finally stated that
>he learned from Bilal. Just as I stated.

Exactly...next time get it straight. You accused me of saying he learned from
Cheung. Now you admit I said that I said he learned his system. Which is
exactly what I said.

>Bilal was doing at that time. Anybody can be
>appointed a rep, even if they just started learning yesterday.
>

But Bilal knew the whole system which he taught. So certification or not, he
taught it.

>it's ludicrous for Mr. Cama
>to make such statements and even more so for you to present them as
>some sort of validation as to William Cheung's system not teaching internal
>or not teaching it from day one and holding it back as you claimed as well.
>The very idea that he is being used as some sort of authority as to what my
system has is laughable.

Again Marty, what has Cama to do with anything? Who used him as an authority
to validate Cheung? More fabrications. I guess you are running out of
ideas.

>Or so you say. How would you know if he knows a "whole system"
>if you've never seen William Cheung's system to begin with by
>your own admission and never studied under someone that is certified
>to teach it? Just going by Sifu says so again.

How do you know that you do? Could it possible he has not taught you
everything as well? You see, you have blinders on and can not see that you
don't have to stay under the wing of a teacher for years and years. There are
certain principles that should be applied to Wing Chun. I would have to say
that my Sifu can teach the system and teach it better.

>Oh, I'm just trying to spark discussion. You're interpreting it wrong.

Spark discussion? Is that what you call it?

CK

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:
Subject: Re: CHICAGO WING CHUN

>>You initially said he learned William Cheung's system and that it had

>>nothing to offer internally. When questioned you finally stated that
>>he learned from Bilal. Just as I stated.
>
>Exactly...next time get it straight. You accused me of saying he learned from
>Cheung. Now you admit I said that I said he learned his system. Which is
>exactly what I said.

Learn to read. I stated that the first time you alluded to him learning
directly from William Cheung. Then when that was questioned you suddenly
stated no, it was from Bilal.

>>Bilal was doing at that time. Anybody can be
>>appointed a rep, even if they just started learning yesterday.
>>
>But Bilal knew the whole system which he taught. So certification or not, he
>taught it.

Bilal did not know any whole system. Conveniently you cut out the previous
statement, so I'll repeat it. NOBODY knew the whole system at that
time. Which is why NOBODY was certified to teach yet at that time.

>>it's ludicrous for Mr. Cama
>>to make such statements and even more so for you to present them as
>>some sort of validation as to William Cheung's system not teaching internal
>>or not teaching it from day one and holding it back as you claimed as well.
>>The very idea that he is being used as some sort of authority as to what my
>system has is laughable.
>
>Again Marty, what has Cama to do with anything?

You stated Cama is your Sifu.

>Who used him as an authority
>to validate Cheung?

You stated your Sifu as having learned the system, demonstrated it to
you, and used it as evidence to back up your claims.

>More fabrications. I guess you are running out of
>ideas.

I guess you're running out of brain cells.

>>Or so you say. How would you know if he knows a "whole system"
>>if you've never seen William Cheung's system to begin with by
>>your own admission and never studied under someone that is certified
>>to teach it? Just going by Sifu says so again.
>
>How do you know that you do? Could it possible he has not taught you
>everything as well?

Nice try changing the focus. Question still remains however, how would
you, Chuck, know if he knows a whole system if you've never seen William
Cheung's system in person to begin with, and never studied under someone
that is certified to teach it? All you've demonstrated is that you're
just taking someone's word for it.

>You see, you have blinders on

Better than being completely blind.

>and can not see that you
>don't have to stay under the wing of a teacher for years and years.

Really? Then why not leave your Sifu now and claim to teach Fut Sao Wing
Chun Kuen?

>There are
>certain principles that should be applied to Wing Chun. I would have to say
>that my Sifu can teach the system and teach it better.

Better than people you've seen in Chicago? That's certainly open to
opinion, and I'm not debating that.

>>Oh, I'm just trying to spark discussion. You're interpreting it wrong.
>
>Spark discussion? Is that what you call it?

No, it's called sarcasm. Repeating your own words. And lo and behold,
you acted just as negative to them as everyone else did when you first
said them. Thanks for prooving my points. All of them.

[CK26M]

>Learn to read. I stated that the first time you alluded to him learning
>directly from William Cheung. Then when that was questioned you suddenly
>stated no, it was from Bilal.

I suggest you go back and read your own post and the ones prior. I never said
he took it from Cheung. You saw it as being alluded to. You just want to
drum up trouble.

>Bilal did not know any whole system. Conveniently you cut out the previous
>statement, so I'll repeat it. NOBODY knew the whole system at that
>time. Which is why NOBODY was certified to teach yet at that time.

So what are you saying? Outside of the fact that much of the system is his
own creation, you are probably right. Bilal could have taught what he had
learned. Would that mean that what he was taught was wrong? Or are you
saying that he needed to be infused with some secret Cheung secrets in order to
fully grasp the system?

>You stated Cama is your Sifu.

::laughs::: I never said such thing. Still can't come up with something?
Show me where I said that. I never stated that. I stated that Cama attended
a seminar where he was teaching. I never stated, or alluded anyone to believe
him to be my sifu.

>You stated your Sifu as having learned the system, demonstrated it to
>you, and used it as evidence to back up your claims.

First get it straight as to who my sifu is. Then make your responses.

>how would
>you, Chuck, know if he knows a whole system if you've never seen William
>Cheung's system in person to begin with, and never studied under someone
>that is certified to teach it? All you've demonstrated is that you're
>just taking someone's word for it.

So who do I see? Stop by and give Cheung a visit? Or order a tape? Because
and experinced martial artist can look at someone. Their postures, shape,
etc....and make a judgement.

>Really? Then why not leave your Sifu now and claim to teach Fut Sao Wing
>Chun Kuen?

Because, I enjoy training with my sifu, and I have not learned everything that
I want to learn. There are many more things I would like to develop and learn
to utilize. However, I guess you don't need that.

>Better than people you've seen in Chicago? That's certainly open to
>opinion, and I'm not debating that.
>

Precisely. That was what the original post was all about. ::laughs:: And
see where it got you? All worked up now, and how easily it was done too.
Thank you for the entertainment.

You made a mistake about my sifu, you made a mistake about who he learned from,
you made a mistake about Cama. You could not even deduce that CHICAGO WING
CHUN meant Chicago Wing Chun and nothing more. You like to read things that
are not there. This all shows one thing. You don't pay attention to what is
being written or you just can't understand the concepts of author's point of
view, compare and contrast, literal meaning, etc......
However you sure have seemed to develop some inference skills but have not
developed them properly.

[Martin Scott Goldberg]

ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>>Learn to read. I stated that the first time you alluded to him learning
>>directly from William Cheung. Then when that was questioned you suddenly
>>stated no, it was from Bilal.
>
>I suggest you go back and read your own post and the ones prior. I never said
>he took it from Cheung. You saw it as being alluded to. You just want to
>drum up trouble.

Go back and use dejanews. You're the one that's been trying to cause
trouble in all this.

>>Bilal did not know any whole system. Conveniently you cut out the previous
>>statement, so I'll repeat it. NOBODY knew the whole system at that
>>time. Which is why NOBODY was certified to teach yet at that time.
>
>So what are you saying? Outside of the fact that much of the system is his
>own creation,

More crap about something you know nothing about, and can't back up.

>you are probably right. Bilal could have taught what he had
>learned.

Simple logic: If A is taught 1/4 of Z and teaches (supposedly) that
1/4 to B, 1/4 does not = 4/4.

>Would that mean that what he was taught was wrong?

It would mean he doesn't know the system he's claiming to.
I can go to college and take a marketing course. Doesn't mean I have
a Business degree or am qualified to teach business at a school.

>Or are you
>saying that he needed to be infused with some secret Cheung secrets in order to
>fully grasp the system?

Nope. You're just making stuff up to cause trouble.

>>You stated Cama is your Sifu.
>
>::laughs::: I never said such thing. Still can't come up with something?
>Show me where I said that. I never stated that. I stated that Cama attended
>a seminar where he was teaching. I never stated, or alluded anyone to believe
>him to be my sifu.

Cama's, as your sifu, credentials were questioned. In fact several
people questioned this. You attempted to provide them never once stating
he was not your Sifu. Go to dejanews, check it out your self.

>>You stated your Sifu as having learned the system, demonstrated it to
>>you, and used it as evidence to back up your claims.
>
>First get it straight as to who my sifu is. Then make your responses.

First get a clue. This is getting completely sophomoric already.

>>how would
>>you, Chuck, know if he knows a whole system if you've never seen William
>>Cheung's system in person to begin with, and never studied under someone
>>that is certified to teach it? All you've demonstrated is that you're
>>just taking someone's word for it.
>
>So who do I see? Stop by and give Cheung a visit? Or order a tape? Because
>and experinced martial artist can look at someone. Their postures, shape,
>etc....and make a judgement.

Make a judgement of what? How would you know what William Cheung teaches
to be able to tell the posture and shape, etc. your sifu was demonstrating was
correct? You're just not making much sense.

>>Really? Then why not leave your Sifu now and claim to teach Fut Sao Wing
>>Chun Kuen?
>
>Because, I enjoy training with my sifu, and I have not learned everything that
>I want to learn. There are many more things I would like to develop and learn
>to utilize. However, I guess you don't need that.

You would to be an authorized Fut Sao Sifu.

>>Better than people you've seen in Chicago? That's certainly open to
>>opinion, and I'm not debating that.
>>
>Precisely. That was what the original post was all about. ::laughs:: And
>see where it got you? All worked up now, and how easily it was done too.
>Thank you for the entertainment.

The only one that's been getting entertained is r.m-a over your nonsense.
You wouldn't believe the ammount of mail I've been getting on people
laughing at how rediculous you are. And worse, that you even denounced
the statements of a senior in your own system, Jim Roselando Jr., a well
respected Fut Sao practitioner. You'll just stop at no end to try and
twist things to be right. ::laughs::

>You made a mistake about my sifu, you made a mistake about who he learned from,
>you made a mistake about Cama. You could not even deduce that CHICAGO WING
>CHUN meant Chicago Wing Chun and nothing more. You like to read things that
>are not there. This all shows one thing. You don't pay attention to what is
>being written or you just can't understand the concepts of author's point of
>view, compare and contrast, literal meaning, etc......
>However you sure have seemed to develop some inference skills but have not
>developed them properly.

Wow, just what everyone has been writing about you. Ironic.

[Wylycoyte]

End this. It's demeaning both of you, and ,even worse, has ceased to be
amusing some time ago.

[Terence Niehoff]

Yawn.

[Terence Niehoff]

Wylycoyte wrote:
> End this. It's demeaning both of you, and ,even worse, has ceased to be
> amusing some time ago.
>

I'll second the motion.

Terence
tnie...@tetranet.net

[MokJong]

hi chuck and all.the 10 years and 8 yeras is for shalolin training,its has
nothing to due with james' article.the point is shaolin is both internal and
external.i did tai chi in 1975 to 1987,then found wing chun.my friend you
are/or sound very young in martial arts and you have alot to learn. enjoy your
training. how long have you studied tac chi ????this is not to knock you but to
help you understand.peace. tony kariotis

[p...@mail.utexas.edu]

On 3 Feb 1998 06:10:17 GMT, wgu...@alpha2.csd.uwm.edu (Martin Scott
Goldberg) wrote:

>ck...@aol.com (CK26M) says:

>>I suggest you go back and read your own post and the ones prior. I never said
>>he took it from Cheung. You saw it as being alluded to. You just want to
>>drum up trouble.
>

>Go back and use dejanews. You're the one that's been trying to cause
>trouble in all this.
>

MSG: Forget it, I think the pure fact that this CK26M idiot has not
once stated who his sifu is, and adamantly evades the question, is
evidence enough that this is just some schmuck trying to stir up
trouble.... with probably only the most rudimentary of training.

[KIM JOHN]

So what are the differences between Buddha Hand Wing Chun
and Yip Man's Wing Chun? Since I'm a beginner, the only form I'm
familiar with is the first form. Are the basics the similar enough that,
if I were to go to your class and look at students going through the
first form, I'd recognize it the first form? Hmm, I do remember readingg
about Buddha Hand, and it looks like it has more forms and with different
names, but a name is just a name.

-John Kim