HFY Eagle
11-29-2004, 02:58 PM
More crap from the Chu Crew……..
I’m not sure why Marty Goldberg decided to take it upon himself and intervene on a KFO thread when a few of our members decided to speak up in our defense. If anyone is interested, the thread was entitled “the Good, the Bad and the Ugly” with HFY, GM Garrett Gee and Master Benny Meng mentioned in the Ugly part. Who is this Goldberg anyway….. the person who started the Wing Chun mailing list which proved to be a real bust with nothing but animosity that has resulted from it. He is a person who participated in the Friendship seminars without touching anyone’s hands because of his serious injuries at the time…. What a joke. Now he is going to turn around and bad mouth our organization and family members…. I don’t think so.
Quote from Goldberg….. “I respect Benny and the museum for all the time, work and expense involved in all their research. I still consider him a friend. But even friends can disagree. At the end of the day though and based on my own experiences with the Friendship Seminars, I tend to agree with Hendrik - nobody can speak for all of wing chun or any other person other than themselves.”
We could all do with a few less “Friends” like you Goldberg. Wow, I’m shocked that you agree with Hendrik…LOL Since it is he, who tries to speak for all of Wing Chun and that he’s the one with all of the secrets and we are all just wasting our time with the way we do things…. When asked, he simply runs and hides with no forthcoming information. But he is one of Roberts boy’s so I can understand your position and backing.
Quote from Goldberg……”As for Victor's original post that started this thread, it had some good points and bad points, including some contradictive ones. Saying statements about putting the past behind and then going on about Leung Ting doesn't exactly promote that view. I also thought his description of wing chun in the "good" part (the lines, the interaction, the forms) were descriptive of his own branch and experiences and not wing chun as a whole. Some branches have more than two weapons for example, or may view their geometry a bit differently. But I wouldn't take offense at it, because it's just a statement on his exposure. I think his intentions are good, however some here may disagree with his methods”
If you think his intentions are good when he states “the HFY people - notably Garrett Gee and Benny Meng - doing a very similar thing in the 90's...but with a new twist...saying that HFY is the ONLY wing chun system that can trace it's roots back to the Shaolin temple - without offering any real proof either..” you either don’t understand our position on history or you have an issue with HFY. I suspect a little of both. Hmmmmm… Here’s a quote from the Mastering Kung Fu book on page 33…. “Although many styles lay claim to a direct connection with the Shaolin temples, Chi Sim Weng Chun backs up its claims with a training system based on Chan teaching and training methods that support Chan philosophy.”
In the same post you write and I quote… “Well, we could just ask why Yip Man consistently changed his mook jong form as well over the years. Yip's mook jong form (much like his wing chun) was a living, breathing entity. Leaving out the crosspolinization between students that's gone on since his death, about the only continuity in that form is usually in the first three sections. After that, choreography and organization can differ greatly. Saying statements that about Augustine changing the Yip Man wooden dummy form would denote that there's some sort of standard Yip Man Mook Jong Form (tm) to be changed in the first place. I haven't seen such a beast yet. To appreciate the depth of Yip Man's wing chun, I think you really have to look at and appreciate all his students over his entire life time. Just as to appreciate wing chun as a whole, you have to look at it and appreciate it across it's entire spectrum.”
I believe that Duende was being nice here and should have said “Why did Augustine Fong and the Yip Man dummy form look different, because Fong made his version up….” You seem to come to the defense of anyone and everyone besides HFY… interesting.
Goldberg wrote……”. No, my views on the subject were on record on the WCML and in person going back to at least '99, long before I had anything to do with Robert (whom I bai si'd in January of 2001, before that I did TWC from '92-'00). Perhaps you're not aware of that because you're newer to the "scene", or if you heard otherwise you were simply missinformed.”
You are sure funny Goldberg. Having been practicing WC for more than 10 years you consider yourself an authority and look down your nose at those that you consider with less experience. What “scene” are you talking about anyway Goldberg…. The one that continually tries to bash our lineage at every chance they get. Maybe if you actually touched hands with people at the Friendship seminars and show your stuff then you would be due the respect you think you deserve. You may think you're on top of the Wing Chun mountain but there may be another peak beyond yourt sight...
Goldberg wrote… “. Secondly, without that book Garret Gee sifu and HFY wouldn't be enjoying the exposure they get via Benny and Richard - Benny has mentioned to myself and others on many an occasion that the chapter on HFY was the catalyst for him to seek Garret out to study. Regardless of any moronic attempt at a comeback on your part, there were three authors though Y. Wu contributed the least - mainly in the nanyang chapter. Though again, most everyone's chapters were actually submitted from each family directly with little if any editing. I saw the original manuscripts and material back in '98 the first time I met Rene . He brought them with to the first friendship seminar up by Ray, which was also the first time I met Benny. The book was not announced yet or in publication yet at the time. ”
Are you talking about the book that Chu so called wrote when he actually gathered the writings of different individuals, as you admit, and then put his name on the cover as the author and called it his own. What sections did Chu and Rene actually write? Why was Y. Wu’s name included as an author if his contributions were so small….it’s because he demanded getting credit for the information he submitted as should have every single one of the “authors”. If you think HFY owes a debt of gratitude to Chu then you are mistaken.
Again Goldberg writes… “As for who's gaining or loosing prospects, you and your family haven't exactly gained many prospects or fans on this forums and others, especially with conduct like this.”
The people that contribute to public forums do so of their own accord and do not represent the Hung Fa Yi family or organization unless otherwise specified. Who the hell are you to talk about my family like this on a public forum. I had to laugh at this one a little bit with regards to conduct and the way that Chu’s student typically represent themselves on that forum. We can hold our heads up high and know that our organization is strong and growing despite the continued attacks and insults that are thrown at us. When people attempt to attack and undermine our organization we will respond every time…..
I’m not sure why Marty Goldberg decided to take it upon himself and intervene on a KFO thread when a few of our members decided to speak up in our defense. If anyone is interested, the thread was entitled “the Good, the Bad and the Ugly” with HFY, GM Garrett Gee and Master Benny Meng mentioned in the Ugly part. Who is this Goldberg anyway….. the person who started the Wing Chun mailing list which proved to be a real bust with nothing but animosity that has resulted from it. He is a person who participated in the Friendship seminars without touching anyone’s hands because of his serious injuries at the time…. What a joke. Now he is going to turn around and bad mouth our organization and family members…. I don’t think so.
Quote from Goldberg….. “I respect Benny and the museum for all the time, work and expense involved in all their research. I still consider him a friend. But even friends can disagree. At the end of the day though and based on my own experiences with the Friendship Seminars, I tend to agree with Hendrik - nobody can speak for all of wing chun or any other person other than themselves.”
We could all do with a few less “Friends” like you Goldberg. Wow, I’m shocked that you agree with Hendrik…LOL Since it is he, who tries to speak for all of Wing Chun and that he’s the one with all of the secrets and we are all just wasting our time with the way we do things…. When asked, he simply runs and hides with no forthcoming information. But he is one of Roberts boy’s so I can understand your position and backing.
Quote from Goldberg……”As for Victor's original post that started this thread, it had some good points and bad points, including some contradictive ones. Saying statements about putting the past behind and then going on about Leung Ting doesn't exactly promote that view. I also thought his description of wing chun in the "good" part (the lines, the interaction, the forms) were descriptive of his own branch and experiences and not wing chun as a whole. Some branches have more than two weapons for example, or may view their geometry a bit differently. But I wouldn't take offense at it, because it's just a statement on his exposure. I think his intentions are good, however some here may disagree with his methods”
If you think his intentions are good when he states “the HFY people - notably Garrett Gee and Benny Meng - doing a very similar thing in the 90's...but with a new twist...saying that HFY is the ONLY wing chun system that can trace it's roots back to the Shaolin temple - without offering any real proof either..” you either don’t understand our position on history or you have an issue with HFY. I suspect a little of both. Hmmmmm… Here’s a quote from the Mastering Kung Fu book on page 33…. “Although many styles lay claim to a direct connection with the Shaolin temples, Chi Sim Weng Chun backs up its claims with a training system based on Chan teaching and training methods that support Chan philosophy.”
In the same post you write and I quote… “Well, we could just ask why Yip Man consistently changed his mook jong form as well over the years. Yip's mook jong form (much like his wing chun) was a living, breathing entity. Leaving out the crosspolinization between students that's gone on since his death, about the only continuity in that form is usually in the first three sections. After that, choreography and organization can differ greatly. Saying statements that about Augustine changing the Yip Man wooden dummy form would denote that there's some sort of standard Yip Man Mook Jong Form (tm) to be changed in the first place. I haven't seen such a beast yet. To appreciate the depth of Yip Man's wing chun, I think you really have to look at and appreciate all his students over his entire life time. Just as to appreciate wing chun as a whole, you have to look at it and appreciate it across it's entire spectrum.”
I believe that Duende was being nice here and should have said “Why did Augustine Fong and the Yip Man dummy form look different, because Fong made his version up….” You seem to come to the defense of anyone and everyone besides HFY… interesting.
Goldberg wrote……”. No, my views on the subject were on record on the WCML and in person going back to at least '99, long before I had anything to do with Robert (whom I bai si'd in January of 2001, before that I did TWC from '92-'00). Perhaps you're not aware of that because you're newer to the "scene", or if you heard otherwise you were simply missinformed.”
You are sure funny Goldberg. Having been practicing WC for more than 10 years you consider yourself an authority and look down your nose at those that you consider with less experience. What “scene” are you talking about anyway Goldberg…. The one that continually tries to bash our lineage at every chance they get. Maybe if you actually touched hands with people at the Friendship seminars and show your stuff then you would be due the respect you think you deserve. You may think you're on top of the Wing Chun mountain but there may be another peak beyond yourt sight...
Goldberg wrote… “. Secondly, without that book Garret Gee sifu and HFY wouldn't be enjoying the exposure they get via Benny and Richard - Benny has mentioned to myself and others on many an occasion that the chapter on HFY was the catalyst for him to seek Garret out to study. Regardless of any moronic attempt at a comeback on your part, there were three authors though Y. Wu contributed the least - mainly in the nanyang chapter. Though again, most everyone's chapters were actually submitted from each family directly with little if any editing. I saw the original manuscripts and material back in '98 the first time I met Rene . He brought them with to the first friendship seminar up by Ray, which was also the first time I met Benny. The book was not announced yet or in publication yet at the time. ”
Are you talking about the book that Chu so called wrote when he actually gathered the writings of different individuals, as you admit, and then put his name on the cover as the author and called it his own. What sections did Chu and Rene actually write? Why was Y. Wu’s name included as an author if his contributions were so small….it’s because he demanded getting credit for the information he submitted as should have every single one of the “authors”. If you think HFY owes a debt of gratitude to Chu then you are mistaken.
Again Goldberg writes… “As for who's gaining or loosing prospects, you and your family haven't exactly gained many prospects or fans on this forums and others, especially with conduct like this.”
The people that contribute to public forums do so of their own accord and do not represent the Hung Fa Yi family or organization unless otherwise specified. Who the hell are you to talk about my family like this on a public forum. I had to laugh at this one a little bit with regards to conduct and the way that Chu’s student typically represent themselves on that forum. We can hold our heads up high and know that our organization is strong and growing despite the continued attacks and insults that are thrown at us. When people attempt to attack and undermine our organization we will respond every time…..