BennyMeng
09-24-2004, 03:26 PM
Below is the latest review on Mastering Kung Fu. This is an example of someone trying to learn kung fu from a book without actual experience. I can relate to this guy's comments from that point-of-view.
From the Wing Chun System's objective point-of-view, Hung Fa Yi, being the origin of Siu Nim Tau, Chum Kiu and Biu Ji, has more historical evidence, a lot more technical discussion backed up by sound body mechanics, which can be explained in realms of theories, concepts and principles that are scientific. With emphasis on Chan and Heigung in addition to fighting/self-defense skills, the HFY system can lay claim to a more thorough tradition than the Ip Man system. Everyone that has experience with HFY can bear witness to this. But, at the same time, we recognize that the system alone doesn't make the practitioner better than anyone else - the system is only as good as the person that is using it. Unlike the person that wrote the comment below, we simply don't believe that "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" - his comments seem to be putting words in our mouths.
Other thoughts?
from Amazon.com's comments area: (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0736045686/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0114010-5337556?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER)
My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu, September 3, 2004
Reviewer: Jacques Ball (Norman, OK)
This book has some thought provoking content, however one has to wade through too many comments like:
"Hung Fa Yi is the only martial system to ultimately reach maximum levels of efficiency." (p 65)
Really, the ONLY one? Based on the authors' exhaustive study of every martial system in existence? There are many similar gems to be found in the book all proclaiming one style (theirs of course) to be the best.
Additionally there are many references to this style as a "science" and not an art, as if to say "those other guys are arts, but we're science". This is a semantic game There is nothing here that a true scientist would call science, despite references to time, space and energy that sound like they come out of a science fiction movie. What a shame. I really wanted to like this book, but there's too much to wade through to get to the meat. I would really like to see an edited second edition. For now, there are plenty of other books that leave out the rhetoric, making it hard to recommend this one.
From the Wing Chun System's objective point-of-view, Hung Fa Yi, being the origin of Siu Nim Tau, Chum Kiu and Biu Ji, has more historical evidence, a lot more technical discussion backed up by sound body mechanics, which can be explained in realms of theories, concepts and principles that are scientific. With emphasis on Chan and Heigung in addition to fighting/self-defense skills, the HFY system can lay claim to a more thorough tradition than the Ip Man system. Everyone that has experience with HFY can bear witness to this. But, at the same time, we recognize that the system alone doesn't make the practitioner better than anyone else - the system is only as good as the person that is using it. Unlike the person that wrote the comment below, we simply don't believe that "my kung fu is better than your kung fu" - his comments seem to be putting words in our mouths.
Other thoughts?
from Amazon.com's comments area: (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0736045686/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/104-0114010-5337556?%5Fencoding=UTF8&me=ATVPDKIKX0DER)
My Kung Fu is better than your Kung Fu, September 3, 2004
Reviewer: Jacques Ball (Norman, OK)
This book has some thought provoking content, however one has to wade through too many comments like:
"Hung Fa Yi is the only martial system to ultimately reach maximum levels of efficiency." (p 65)
Really, the ONLY one? Based on the authors' exhaustive study of every martial system in existence? There are many similar gems to be found in the book all proclaiming one style (theirs of course) to be the best.
Additionally there are many references to this style as a "science" and not an art, as if to say "those other guys are arts, but we're science". This is a semantic game There is nothing here that a true scientist would call science, despite references to time, space and energy that sound like they come out of a science fiction movie. What a shame. I really wanted to like this book, but there's too much to wade through to get to the meat. I would really like to see an edited second edition. For now, there are plenty of other books that leave out the rhetoric, making it hard to recommend this one.