That's debatable.
I think I reacted to it the same way I'd react to any flash mob of kung fools who show up online to spread lies about scholarly literature. Those "people" are wrong, and a lot of them are for sure Wing Chun student trolls. One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you". Uh huh, I see you bud. Some other dude in a different thread pretended to know me, and used the same "Greasy Dragon" reference. Play on, playa.
The book's bibliography contains over 150 sources. A know a couple of those people, but I'm especially aware of the beef between Wing Chun schools. It's also over an inch thick. When I compare it to the next nearest best work on Wing Chun, that old one doesn't come close.
The "critics" here said first it was all based on Leung Ting. That was easily falsified by anyone holding the book in hand.
Then it was all from one book about Foshan. That was a lie, but I don't even believe all those accounts are different people. Either one person, or several people who know each other and also, don't read (you can tell these trolls right away, he challenged my own reading comprehension. Bad move, I read the book, it's right here in my pile).
The truth is the people commenting about Judkins in such a hyperbolic and fact-deficient way, don't like the fact that it exposes a lot of their strongly held "truths" about Wing Chun. And it was co-written by someone whose Wing Chun credentials are impeccable.
Cornell history scholar+Wing Chun master = your argument is invalid.
I'm well attuned to being a hated messenger, but I love the job man. Sincerely.
Playing the victim, huh?
One more time:
1. Judkin's book does not in any way challenge any beliefs I have about Wing Chun - to me it states absolutely nothing new or particularly insightful. I just pointed out that it is limited by its sources - like it or not, but even though the bibliography appears impressive, the sources it draws on to provide information about Wing Chun, its masters, its development in Mainland China is actually very, very limited.
2. The fact, which is easy for anyone who bothers to open the book and actually read the bibliography to verify is that the bulk of that information is drawn primarily from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" and secondarily from Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun". I even counted the number of references for you and gave you the pages on which they can be found - in both the printed and ebook editions. But did you even bother to check this? Apparently not, since you kept insisting that a) I haven't read the book and b) I don't even own a copy.
If memory serves me right, I even offered that we set up a video call so I can show you on live video that I own a hardcopy of the book, if giving you specific pages and numbers still would not convince you that I own and have read the book.
But you just ignored that and kept insisting that I hadn't read the book, you didn't even bother to check the pages I listed and check the numbers I provided - instead you simply continue telling yourself that I am telling lies about the book - which I surely do not, as can very easily be found out by looking up the relevant pages.
You shouldn't be insisting that people are lying, when you don't even bother to disprove or argue any evidence to the contrary.
Reading your comment above, one cannot but think that there is a problem somewhere, be it in terms of willingness to actually read what is being posted, or indeed with reading comprehension.
3. Speaking of reading comprehension... Unfortunately, your above post really corroborates the point I made. You took offense that I wrote somethin to the effect of "that book is of no better quality that a high school paper" because you somehow read this as if I was referring to Mr. Judkin's book, but it should be pretty clear to anyone reading carefully what I wrote that I was referring to the book "Fatsaan Martial Culture", he draws so heavily on. I even pointed out the misunderstanding EXPLICITLY in a seperate post, but you STILL didn't concede that you had misread something and got it in your head that I questioned Mr. Judkin's scholarly method.
And now, based on the post above, you seem to think that I questioned your ability to read Mr. Judkin's book! Where do you get that from? I never did such a thing, and even explained your misunderstanding to you...
If the problem is not your reading comprehension, no offense, what is it?
4. You seem to be imagining quite a bit, there is no one after you or Mr. Judkin's book because of "lineage beef" - once again, I just pointed out its limitations to you. It has nothing to do with lineage or "beliefs", as you seem to interpret the criticism.
You seem to be quite imaginative, thinking that people - say me - trolll you under different profiles. I can tell you for sure that this is my only profile on this forum, and that I am not "hunschuld". For example, based on what he wrote in past threads, he is in the US, while I am in China. I offered you before to clear this matter up on a video call, in real time, face to face. Would a troll with multiple trolling accounts do that? Just send me a PM and we are on.
5. Are you sure that Mr. Judkins is a "historian"? He has a Ph.D. in Political Science but not in history... And the co-writer being a "Wing Chun Master"? By whose standards? How is mastery defined - and how is having mastery of a physical skill in any way relevant to being knowledgable on certain things such as the evolution of Wing Chun? Anyway, whatever knowledge people have, whether they are indeed the finest martial arts historian or the greatest, most accomplished Gung Fu master around, depends on the number and quality of the sources they have access to.
6. You ignored the questions I asked multiple times:
- how long have you practiced Wing Chun and with whom?
- how long have you practiced Hung Ga Kuen in the Lam Sai Wing lineage and with whom?
To round this off, please allow me to quote what Eric H wrote:
Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.
This is exactly how I feel about the book - and, as I already stated in the thread referred to, it is definitely the best book of its kind and should be on every Wing Chun enthusiast's bookshelf. Just don't take it as the ultimate, or authoritative say on things. Critical thinking is a must at all times.
Sincerely.
