Talk:Tien Shan Pai/Archive 1

 
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is clearly jockeying going on here that has to do more with personalities and political positions, rather than with verifiable facts concerning the legacy and history of Tien Shan Pai. Blanking out "discussion" is not an answer, however well intended. Check out, where available, the websites of the current TSP generation of Modern Practitioners: Grandmasters Huang, Lin, Lin and Liu. Get ALL of their points of view, before you post something that is either "heresay" or self-serving. Talk with the "modern practitioner" Grandmasters personally. All of these men all still alive, and have phone numbers, and/or web addresses through which you can contact them. If what gets posted here, in Wikipedia, is biased, then this entry page informs of nothing, and serves no one.

Blanking of this page was intended to remove slander - Junzi

Agreed. Slander has no business here.

It is confusing to me how one can claim to be a grandmaster of a style without having been the disciple of the previous grandmaster of that style. -Junzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that Huang is the ONLY person with the skill, knowledge and credentials to consider himself a Grandmaster of Tien Shan Pai? I don’t think so!

Also, where is it written that a Martial Arts Master can only take one disciple? Many Masters (GM Huang included) have several “disciples.” I assume this is to recognize their instructors who show exceptional ability in, and devotion to their art.

We know that in the early days of Tien Shan Pai, (in Taiwan,) Wang Jyue Jen initiated his disciples in private ceremonies… not in public forums. We also know is that one such private ceremony was done for Willy Lin and his training partner, Tsong Chung Chen. We know this because Lin references this event on his website.

Was such a ceremony performed for either C.C. Liu, Tony Lin, or any of the other senior Masters in Taiwan before Lin and Chen? Don’t know. You would have to ask them.

What we do know (once again from Lin’s website) is that after the ceremony, and for the next eight years, Lin alone assisted Wang, and taught for Wang in Wang’s Lei Sheng Wu Yuan”, or “Thunder Sound Martial Arts Garden” school in Taiwan. As a result and at that time, Lin was regarded by his classmates, his junior classmates (those he taught,) and by his senior classmates, as Wang’s most senior instructor and disciple.

By virtue of this private ceremony, Chen would also be considered a disciple of Wang Jyue Jen… even though Chen never spoke of it publicly, never taught for Wang, and never followed any kind of public career as a Martial Artist.

It should be noted that, in Wang’s traditional school, becoming a “disciple” was not like becoming an Eagle Scout. There was no fixed quantity of “curriculum” that had to be learned, no exalted “belt” level that had to be achieved. In fact, there was no belt system at all in Wang’s school. You were either a student, or you were the Master.

“Discipleship” was more about Wang opening a door to allow his chosen access to the Master’s advanced knowledge. How deeply any disciple chose to take advantage of this opportunity was up to that disciple, and the time he had to devote to Martial Art.

I do not intend my statements to in any way diminish the accomplishments of any of Master Wang's students. However, the issue is actually specifically one of credentials, and even more specifically of those that can only be given by Master Wang. As such, I would respectfully request that Willy Lin present some evidence other than his words that he is a disciple of Master Wang. Huang has done so by providing photographic evidence of calligraphy in Master Wang's hand writing.

Additionally, a distinction should be made between being a disciple and being lineage holder of a style. While a lineage holder may have many disciples, generally only one of those disciples will go on to inherit the title of lineage holder, especially in traditional schools. The regard of classmates, junior or senior, is not relevant to the passing of the title of lineage holder. Huang has asserted that he is the only person to possess any tangible proof of his claim to the title of lineage holder, but of course such claims would have to be re-examined in the face of additional evidence. -Junzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________ I accept that you have a strong predisposition to support GM Huang and his positions. Whether this is because you are one of his disciples, his student, or GM Huang, himself, I don’t know… nor do I care. You’re entitled to believe, support and follow whomever you wish. In the same way, GM Huang is free to post whatever he feels appropriate about himself on either his own website… or on those other websites which he controls because they are all connected under the umbrella of his organization (www.tienshanpai.org,, www.twksf.org, www.usksf.org, www.kuoshu.co.uk, etc.)

It feels like you are trying to turn the Tien Shan Pai page in Wikipedia into Huang’s exclusive domain. Most of the reference “footnotes” on this Wikipedia page can be traced back to Huang’s organization. Huang’s websites are not objective. They are his! Tien Shan Pai is larger than just GM Huang alone.

No one doubts Huang has a paper that says he is a disciple. The problem is, there are other disciples out there, too. Men in Taiwan who were told they were Wang’s disciples… and this was years before Huang even came on the scene.

Once someone is a person’s child, he is always that person’s child. Once someone is a person’s disciple, he is always that person’s disciple… no matter how inconvenient that may be for his fellow disciples.

In Lin’s 1976 book, TIEN SHAN PAI KUNG FU, Lin identifies himself as Wang’s disciple. He dedicates this volume to Wang. If Lin was not Wang’s disciple, you don’t think Wang would have taken exception to such a public statement? Obviously Wang did not because the same statement appears in both of Lin’s subsequent Chin-Na books (published in 1981 and 1984.)

Tien Shan Pai has been through too many generations, and through too many Sifus who studied under Wang and/or his disciples for any one person to try to appropriate it for himself. If Huang wants to be known as a “disciple & lineage holder” of Tien Shan Pai let him. Just know that there are many people (both practitioners and disciples) out there who DON’T accept he’s the ONLY one.

-- The controversy here is well known and well documented. Wang certainly had many disciples, that is not in dispute. I apologize if my statements imply otherwise, I did not intend for them to. Rather the controversy is manifold, involving, but not limited to, Huang's possibly exclusive claim to the title of grandmaster, statements made by Willy Lin's students regarding the origin of the style, the stylistic makeup of Tien Shan Pai, the extent (and origin) of the claim of many generations of the style, and so on. Most of the discussion regarding these fundamental questions has involved more personal attack and vituperation than actual exchange of knowledge.

Perhaps, rather than arguing over the placement of words and so forth, it would be simpler to re-organize the article somewhat so that the controversy can be laid plain for anyone who cares to read about it. Both sides have their points, and it would be quite simple to find examples of what both sides have to say about this from the Rotten Tomatoes forum discussion, as well as from articles and letters from the Inside Kungfu magazine. Anyone who actually cares enough to read some obscure article on wiki ought to have a careful analysis of the debate presented to them, as most of the discussion presented online is the posturing of people who have little or no actual knowledge regarding the intricacies of the situation. - Junzi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junzi (talk • contribs) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________

I appreciate your candor and thoughtful contributions to this discussion. I agree with you. The Tien Shan Pai page in Wikipedia should be re-organized. I would suggest, however, that the re-organization be done by those Grandmasters (both in the US and in Taiwan) who knew and studied under Wang … not by their students, or their student’s students.

I am aware of the Rotten Tomatoes discussion, and while I believe this forum originated as a good faith gesture, it does seem to have degenerated into a free-for-all filled with unseemly and inappropriate personal attacks.

I propose to approach Master Dennis Brown, who has been involved with Tien Shan Pai since 1971. Yes, he is GM Lin’s disciple, but he is also someone who was there at the beginning of “Tien Shan Pai” in the US. He is someone who has had professional and ongoing relationships with all of the Tien Shan Pai GMs in the US. He also had personal interactions with Wang, Jyue Jen, himself, when Wang was alive.

I will suggest that Master Brown be helpful in requesting the various Tien Shan Pai GMs to submit their own recollections of experiences in order to compile a complete and inclusive history of this Martial Art discipline.

Followers of Tien Shan Pai, as well as those who are just curious, deserve clarification from the men who were there regarding the fundamental questions that have been raised regarding lineage, generations and  history which are currently “in dispute.”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.150.157 (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

- I wonder wy this is not being followed? "include (alphabetically) Chien-Liang Huang, Tony Lin, Willy Lin, and Chao Chi Liu." If this is in "alphabetical order why Chien-Liang Huang is first? I can see there is a push from this teacher's followers to have him as the first on everything. User talk:Tianshanwarrior Dec 30 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.148.8 (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.