real history is proven, not sold

I recently had the pleasure of conducting two interviews with Sifu Vik Hothi, a distinguished martial artist and Wing Chun Sifu from the same Leung Ting lineage as myself. I first met Sifu Vik last year and was impressed by his dedication to serious research and his disdain for the misleading tactics often employed by many “Wing Chun historians.” During our discussions, Sifu Vik highlighted numerous issues surrounding claims made about a style of Wing Chun known as "Snake and Crane Wing Chun." To clarify, the concern isn’t whether this lineage is legitimate, but rather the specific claims made by its proponents.

As many of you who listen to the Kung Fu Genius Podcast may know, I’ve developed a keen interest in historical inquiry over the past few years. My focus isn’t solely on Wing Chun or Kung Fu history; instead, I wanted to understand how historians ascertain what truly happened in the past. This curiosity sparked an intense study of historical methodology, involving books, courses, and a wealth of online content from accredited historians. While delving into these methodologies has become one of my favorite pursuits, it has led me to a striking conclusion: much of what is considered “research” in Chinese martial arts, particularly in Wing Chun, would fail any introductory history course.

The majority of Chinese martial arts history often leans heavily into apocryphal myths, while what is labeled as “serious research” frequently comprises enthusiastic claims supported by fabricated evidence, rife with confirmation bias and a troubling shifting of the burden of proof. After immersing myself in rigorous historical study, it becomes glaringly obvious that much of kung fu history is rooted in wishful thinking. A martial arts lineage may reflect either its effectiveness or purity—two characteristics that don’t necessarily correlate. This creates a problem, as Kung Fu lineages often embellish details to avoid appearing unimportant or second-rate. Moreover, when challenging anyone's claims, it’s not uncommon to witness a swift descent into personal attacks, victimization narratives, and spurious appeals to authority. Spoiler alert: there are no authorities in Chinese Kung Fu history—only evidence that can withstand scrutiny.

It's essential to understand that any serious historian is committed to uncovering the truth, even when that truth contradicts their previous beliefs. Historians evaluate evidence objectively rather than seeking to confirm their biases. In fact, one must approach information that aligns with our beliefs with skepticism—this is a common pitfall that can lead to a false sense of understanding.

In my conversations with Sifu Vik, I found him to be a rare individual in the Wing Chun community who genuinely values proper historical methodology. I encourage you to watch my interviews with him; I believe you’ll see this commitment reflected in our discussions. The Wing Chun world desperately needs more individuals willing to confront the uncertainties of history with intellectual honesty. It takes courage to admit, “I don’t know,” a sentiment rarely expressed by Wing Chun historians. Instead, we often encounter self-proclaimed “Encyclopedias of Wing Chun” who become defensive when their authority is challenged, despite lacking even the most basic knowledge of the culture they claim to represent.