wayne hansen wrote:If you want to take people as experts to prove previous theories
They at least should have some degree of physical skill
I see people setting themselves up as experts stating who they learnt from
However I don’t see the skill having passed from one generation to the next
Expertise is only worth the facts that back it up.
I shared the wikipedia, it was dismissed as CIA lies.
The same information is repeated all over the internet by numerous Chen schools, but we can't believe what the Chen people say about themselves, they're clearly lying for clout.
So I produced a source of the information, which is what we're debating here, if history was decided by who was the better boxer... well honestly that's probably why we're in such a mess to begin with when it comes to understanding these things.
But I digress, I produced a source of the information that predates the CIA planted lies that were picked up by the Chen schools that got their curriculum from google that people in China produce videos demonstrating.
It has a source, T. T. Liang, with demonstrable access to quality information, most of it he just stole and translated.
And the breakdown of the form sections provided, if you examine the postures within those sequences, matches up well with the 6 roads of the old frame, which was it?? er lu? Where is Sal at with his 8 blackbelts when you need him?
Point being, we can argue for the sake of arguing, or maybe examine the numerous sources of evidence. Form, lore, and evolution of practice within disparate lineages to reverse engineer something approaching the truth of the art that transcends the window dressing of ego and posturing.