chan wah shun vs leung bik

[wingchunalex]

what versions of yip man's wing chun claim that yip man learned from chan wah shun and leung bik, and what versions claim he learned only from chan wah shun?

also what are people's personal oppinions on this.

(im really sorry if this gets people angry at eachother, I'll try and prevent it as much as I can, I was just cuious about this subject because i don't do yip man's wing chun) thanks

[yuanfen]

Hi wingchunalex- among the same old same old wing chun topics that reappear cyclically is the question of Ip man and Leung Bik.
And people have different positions on Ip Man and Leung Bik. heck forget about Ip man's generation even now it is a lot of guesswork about who learned the bot jam do from whom or who learned wing chun from whom. Ultimately, the two persons who really knew the Ip Man-Leung Bik story are dead. many of the history questions IMO anyway are academic in the worst sense of the word. Much is just opinion. Three major sets of opinions:.
1. Ip Man met Leung Bik in Hong Kong and learned lot more of a conceptual approach to wing chun than he had learned from his first teacher who he lists as was custom as his sifu. Ip Man told his sons when they were young the same thing and he also told many of his key students the same thing. His first teacher taught
it seems a strong straight ahead approach to the art wheras
presumably Leung Bik knew more about footwork and hada more subtle approach. When all is said and done I take Ip man at his word. My take is that Ip man wasa very creative individual and he put togther an amazing version of wing chun. So the story of the stimulation by two major teachers makes sense.
2. You have another line of argument bolstered apparently by Wang kiu who wasnt there that the Leung Bik story was advanced for advertisement by Ip man and Lee man. There is no documented evidence of lee man saying that the story was manufactured. Sooo I dont believe the Wang Kiu version.
3. You have William Cheung's version that Ip man kept what he learned from the two teachers separate and taught W. Cheung the Leung Bik version. I take that story witha grain of salt without questioning Cheung's personal abilities.

At the end of the day- for development of my wing chun- it doesnt matter. Ip Man has left us an amazing legacy and I consider myself fortunate that I ran into one decent version of the art. There is enough in that legacy for everyone.
You asked for opinions so I respond in that spirit rather than for purposes of debating.
joy chaudhuri

[wingchunalex]

thanks, good response. very insightful and interesting. i hope that who ever else responds to my post responds in the same spirit you did.

[reneritchie]

Yuenfen is correct, though others besides Wang Kiu have offered the same or similar accounts, including a prominent student of Leung Sheung, and a couple surprising people in private (who don't believe such stories should ever be challenged in public, which if you understand the culture, should probably be the classic approach).

WRT more footwork. I think it would likely be the other way around. While small people might need more active footwork in the beginning, when we're talking very high levels of skill, they can achieve smaller circles as well, forcing the taller, lankier folks who can't get inside to orbit.

RR

[t_niehoff]

Joy wrote:

When all is said and done I take Ip man at his word.

----------------------

I guess by "word" you mean not Yip's own hand-written account but rather oral reports by others of what he allegedly said. ;) It seems to me that if Yip had received much from Leung Bik he would have at least mentioned him in his written history (where he bothers to thank certain si-hings). TN

Terence

[yuanfen]

Terence and answers to TN in brackets:
I guess by "word" you mean not Yip's own hand-written account but rather oral reports by others of what he allegedly said.

((Sure. BTW- one report had it that when they first net that Leung Bik said something like- young man have you learned the chum kiu?)))

It seems to me that if Yip had received much from Leung Bik he would have at least mentioned him in his written history (where he bothers to thank certain si-hings). TN

(( we are looking at Yip man through a different prism- one where
instruction, narratives and commentary are more written down than in Yip man's kung fu world.))Joy chaudhuri

[rochester]

What do Yip Chun and Yip Ching have to say on the subject? Seems as if their dad had Leung Bik as an instructor, he would have told them stories about him.

[byond1]

hi guys...
there is no real proof either way. in yip mans written history(which was only a ruff draft, the final version was never completed) he mentions chan wah shun as his sifu and also lists his fellow brother such as ng chun so, lai hiip chai, chan yiu men ect.. yip was also very open with the fact that alot of his training was from ng chun so. leung bik is never mentioned. though in an interview with mok poi on, yip man clearly states that he furthered his training with leung bik. ive heared that lai hip chais cousin was the guy who brought yip man to meet leung bik.
i believe that he learned concept/theory from leung bik....but that is my opinion.
many things are hearsay....no proof of anything...sometimes its best to not even fret over it....there have been rumers that yuen kay san studied at ng chun sos school...in fact yiu kay remembers yuen kay san and yip man both there at the same period of time...the yuen kay san family denies that this ever happened...and that yuen kay only learned from fok bo chun and fung siu ching.....go figure.....

[yuanfen]

Rochester- both Yip Chun and Yip Ching mention in their essays/books/web sites the leung Bik story they got from their father- not from Lee man.
But Yip man by many standards was not the ideal story telling fatherly or grandfatherly type. If you make a composite of what he mentioned to different people its a good enough story. Chan wah Son was his first teacher and so lists him as his sifu by the standards of that time- though he also learned from his sihings and leung Bik.

For my own judgement call unprovable as fact ina court of law is of Leung Bik internalizing the conceptual foundations of Leung Jan's art and being very aware of mobility and the soft side of wing chun and less dummy arm breaking kind of strength that Chan Wah Son may have had. Leung Bik asked Yip Man whether he knew the chum kiu..which is a study in motion.

I doubt that Ip man got the do and the kwan from Chan Wah son---very likely Leung Bik. Leung Bik may or may not have been a superb fighter himself but a person does not have to be a top fighter to be a transmitter of knowledge as is the case for many "coaches".


Ip man in his youth was known for his kicks and knees as well-
though in the aging process he adapted to the needs of the seasons.

In our western society we have a fetish over the written word (In the beginning-their was the Word...) and we mistakenly try to depend on the written word for understanding other societies.
There is lots to Yip man's life- not all documented and not all necessarily known by the two sons most people tralk about.

Warts and all he was some figure. I am well aware that given my nationality, he wouldnt have given me the time of the day.

BTW- I can prove very indirectly that I was born- I have no birth certficate and the Brits on those days didnt care - just so long as the taxes were paid. But I think that I was born- without a miracle. Though they sing joy to the world.

[reneritchie]

Yip Chun has also said, to several people, that he won't publically contradict any of the old stories, making it difficult to access what he actually knows vs. what he will not contradict. No idea about Yip Ching. The Mok Poi On article, on its face, is a good source, but due to politics swirling about the times, some others have suggested it was more a Leung Ting interview than Yip Man, and Leung Ting was known to really enjoy the stories of Lee Man.

The trouble with all this stuff is that there's no clear answer either way, and the "evidence" is such that it supports opposing opinions virtually equally.

RR

[hunt1]

YIp Chun has/did tell a story that Yip man saw Leung Bik again later when Leung Biks daughter married the friend that introduced Yip man to Leung Bik. Most of what I have heard supports Joys take on things.

Also I tend to believe the truth to the Leung Bik story can be found in the story that Williem Cheung tells. The core truth is based on Chan Wah being larger,stronger and more skillfull. If we accept that most WC moves to the inner gate and takes control of the center line then Leung Biks WC would have to in fact use more long range mobil footwork ,which tends to be 50/50 in nature and would have to move to the outside gate if Leung Bik would have a chance against Chan Wah who would be using back leg weighted footwork and moving to control the center via the inside gates.

In fact if a smaller person faces a larger stronger person that has equal or greater skill they will infact have to move to the outside if they hope to have a chance.

[t_niehoff]

hunt1 wrote:

In fact if a smaller person faces a larger stronger person that has equal or greater skill they will infact have to move to the outside if they hope to have a chance.
------------------

I suppose that may be true of your approach, but that's not true of mine. IME if one destroys the opponent's body structure on contact and controls the centerline, then the opponent's size doesn't matter. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Hunt1 - I've found, when the skill levels get very high, the smaller folks can make tighter circles, forcing the bigger folks to have to move around them. Counter intuitive, I know, but really good folks in several arts seem to exhibit this.

Secondly, it kind of goes against the very nature of WCK that Chan Wah-Shun could win just because he was bigger and stronger despite Leung, in the story, being more highly skilled (knowing the full "secret footwork ++" system).

In a WCK story, Leung should have dominated the center, forced Chan to move around him, and used his bigger size and strength against him.

RR

[yuanfen]

I suppose that may be true of your approach, but that's not true of mine. IME if one destroys the opponent's body structure on contact and controls the centerline, then the opponent's size doesn't matter. TN

Terence
------------------


reneritchie

Hunt1 -
Secondly, it kind of goes against the very nature of WCK that Chan Wah-Shun could win just because he was bigger and stronger despite Leung, in the story, being more highly skilled (knowing the full "secret footwork ++" system).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Some opinions FWIW:
On Terence's point:
With people of equivalent skills size can matter IMO- but much depends on other contextual factors as well- emotions of the
moment for instance. Going to the side can be effective for the smaller person - besides IMO one can control the center from the outside or inside.

On Rene's point: Entirely possible for a person to be more knowledgeable about a system but to be dominated by some one with less knowledge. Relative age and experience and developmental stage at the same point in time contribute to outcome IMO.

[S.Teebas]

In a WCK story, Leung should have dominated the center, forced Chan to move around him, and used his bigger size and strength against him.

Not if they are doing the same thing. Sure its possible to do that against a non WC person, but if the big guy knows how to chase the centre then the smaller guy has to work a hell of a lot harder! And lets face it, Chan was a tmaster level so he knew a thing or 2!

Samller guy would need to be able to absorb much more force through his stance and be alot more sensitive. Big guy can absorb more force naturally from pure body mass. Bigger guys can do achieve more with less skill, its a fact.

[t_niehoff]

Joy wrote:

Some opinions FWIW:
On Terence's point:
With people of equivalent skills size can matter IMO- but much depends on other contextual factors as well- emotions of the
moment for instance. Going to the side can be effective for the smaller person - besides IMO one can control the center from the outside or inside.

On Rene's point: Entirely possible for a person to be more knowledgeable about a system but to be dominated by some one with less knowledge. Relative age and experience and developmental stage at the same point in time contribute to outcome IMO.

IME "equivalent skills" do not exist (two people can be close to the same level in the entirety of skills, but the individual skills going into the mix are different). I've found that size and strength go into the mix and so a smaller person has to have greater skills in other areas to compensate. And, certainly I agree that flanking is useful and that one can control the center from the inside or outside; my point is that IME the opponent tells us how to defeat him -- sometimes he leaves the center open, sometimes he closes it and leaves the flank open: in either case, the opponent decides, not us (that we don't have a "fixed strategy"). TN

-------------------

S.Teebas wrote:

Not if they are doing the same thing. Sure its possible to do that against a non WC person, but if the big guy knows how to chase the centre then the smaller guy has to work a hell of a lot harder! And lets face it, Chan was a tmaster level so he knew a thing or 2! (ST)

See my reply to Joy above. IME I've found that larger folks have more trouble keeping their center closed (being wider); and if someone smaller tries to flank a larger person, they have more ground to cover (they're moving around a larger object). TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

S.Teebas: There are different levels of "Master". If we remember this story, Leung Bik received a lifetime of personal instruction from his father, while Chan Wah-Shun received only a short time, part of it consisting solely of "spying" over a fence. It should have been a beat down for Chan the likes of which hadn't been seen since Yim Wing-Chun learned enough in a short time to beat down a full on gangster.

So, yes, ESPECIALLY in WCK, where we're constantly told that skill overcomes size and strength. Yuen Kay-San was small. Yip Man was small. Sum Nung was small. Hawkins Cheung is small. Ben Der is small. Others are small as well. How many strong, lanky guys who spy over a fence, get a little instruction, and then beat them at their own games, especially if they haven't been taught "the whole system"??

I'm calling shenanigans! LOL!

[hunt1]

Terrence- i doubt our approach is much different the reality and speed of a fight has a great deal to do with what you can and cannot do vs the Chi Sao lab. If I hit you I will destroy your stucture even if my skill is far below yours.Why? because I have 240lbs or so to go with it.Size and reach gives a big natural advantage. Also combat range has a great deal to do with what you can and cannot do safely. From a non contact range a small person will be safer on the ouside gate moving to the opponents center than on the inside moving to the center. If we start in contact range escpecially past wrist to wrist range then small person operates on the inside.

Renee- your own personal experience may be helpful.
Can Georgia on a regular basis beginning from non -contact range take and control your center and destroy your stucture by moving straight up the middle on you? Due to your longer arms are you not in a position to hit her before she can do the same to you?

[black and blue]

You wrote:


There is lots to Yip man's life- not all documented and not all necessarily known by the two sons most people tralk about.

When you say 'by the two sons most people talk about' do you mean there's more than two sons? Or have I read this completely wrong?

[joy chaudhuri]

Terence- I dont think that it pays to be only reactive and let the opponent show the way in a real fight.

Rene- It is possible for a person(Leung Jan's son in this case) to have lots of information and a conceptual understanding without necessarily being number one in skilled application.

B and B. I chose my words carefully in order to deal with Yip Man
and Leung Bik issue without going too much into Ip man's personal life.

[wingchunalex]

Thanks for speculating about who yip man learned from. its been intersting and insightful.

on size and strength-

I'm 5'5" tall, 145lbs. im fairly small. my training buddy is 6'1" and another guy at my school is like 6'2" 200lbs, and another guy is 240lbs 6'2". the 200 lbs pound guy is on about the same skill level as me and my training buddy is very very similar to me.

size and strength have a lot to do with how I can fight someone. especially reach is a big factor. With a big person I have to use a lot more footwork and a lot of side stepping. I can't keep in contact as long with a big person because of their strength advantage, i have to get in and out. with someone with a reach advantage i really have to be patient and wait for them to open up, i usually can't start a attack easily because when i do i get hit first because of their reach advantage. the guy that is 240lbs has a lot lower skill level than me but i still have to be mad careful because of his brute force and long reach. so from my experience the size of your opponent does make a big difference. also the higher skill you are the more you can treat them as if they weren't so big and strong.

[reneritchie]

Hunt1 - Georgia is a phenom, with fast, precise, low profile strikes, and considerable disregard for my wellfare 8)

B&B - There's a third son, but I don't believe he has much to do with WCK, at least publically.

Joy - Being active just means the opponent shows you the way through their (in)ability to deal with your actions. Good point on skill, some people are better coaches than fighters.

RR

[hunt1]

now now Rene no avoiding the question.:D Can she on a consistent basis take and control your center by moving to the inside gate?

[t_niehoff]

Joy wrote:

Terence- I dont think that it pays to be only reactive and let the opponent show the way in a real fight. JC

Rene "jeet"ed me with his accurate response ("Being active just means the opponent shows you the way through their (in)ability to deal with your actions."). TN

-----------------------

hunt1 wrote:

i doubt our approach is much different the reality and speed of a fight has a great deal to do with what you can and cannot do vs the Chi Sao lab.

Sorry, but I don't understand the "vs the Chi Sao lab" part. TN

If I hit you I will destroy your stucture even if my skill is far below yours. Hunt1 (goes on to talk about size difference).

My WCK doesn't involve letting you hit me. :) TN

From a non contact range a small person will be safer on the ouside gate moving to the opponents center than on the inside moving to the center. If we start in contact range escpecially past wrist to wrist range then small person operates on the inside. Hunt1

Whatever the "range" or whether the opponent attacks first or not, the first thing I do is join (dap/jip) then go from there. In playing tennis, you don't get to choose whether to hit a forehand or backhand (99% of the time), it's where the opponent hits the ball in relation to you that makes the decision for you. Similarly, whether I go to the outside gate or inside gate depends on the conditions (what the opponent is doing, our relationship, etc.). If a larger opponent throws a wide thai kick that leaves the center (inner gate) open, that's where I go; if he charges up the middle, then I take the flank/outside; if I go up the middle and feel he's strong there, then I'll change to the flank; etc. If you don't control the opponent's center (of gravity) then in-the-middle is not a very safe place to be; if you do control his cog, there is no safer place IMHO. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Hunt1 - More often than my bigger, stronger, almost as skilled classmates. In fact, she makes me work harder to deal with her smaller, more evil circles.

t_niehoff is also correct.

RR

[planetwc]

There are other children of Yip Man.
Other than that it is not too exciting.


Originally posted by black and blue
You wrote:



When you say 'by the two sons most people talk about' do you mean there's more than two sons? Or have I read this completely wrong?

[byond1]

im not sure whats so hard to believe about the story,,,chan wah was big and strong and was able to use the straight body wc very effectvly....he didnt need to flank his opponent....leung bik ..whatever he had learned from leung jan would probably been more of the pin sien..side body wc...leung wouldnt have to be a great fighter to impart wc theory...chan wah fought...much like leung jan did...so he had the real application thing down....but leung bik being more educated could explain what was going on..lol..or what should be going on.....the use of flanking is a very important part of the wc system....this is something william cheung uses most of the time....it is very possible that yip man did explain to him the theory of fflanking.....do i think yip man taught william cheung the parallel stance..no...i believe william cheung put that in himself...i believe he created the entry technique and modified his forms from contact with yks and koloo theory.....its a good combat system...i just wish more high profile wc people would tell the whole story of where there individual interpretations come from...it would cut down on alot of the internal bickering.....

[hunt1]

TN- Thank You for agreeing with my original post. As you said if someone is stronger up the middle you will move to their flank. the heart of the Leung Bik story is just this. Chan Wah was stronger up the middle so Bik was taught other methods ,moving to the flank, of dealing with him.

Letting me hit you? Dont know where you got this from. I have never met anyone that would let me hit them full power. I must come to St. Loius to train sounds like I would have lots of fun if peeps there will let me hit them.:D

I was wrong our WC is different. My Wc is nothing like tennis. My opponent moves but I move first. I dictate I do not react (barring surprise situations) . My opponent tells me all I need to know by his initial stance and his range from me. What he does after that is of no meaning. I dont pay attention to what he does.Round kick,punch,shoot etc all the same. Unless I decide to let him attack first which I have reasons for doing.

Bridging, I dont understand your point you must bridge to fight no bridge no fight. What you do with the bridge energy is a different question. some know how to use it some dont.
The best bridge and best method to control the center of gravity is to hit and knockout your opponent. That is the goal everything short of this is on the path to achieve this. Bridge to control the cog is chi sao application not fighting application hence my comment about the chi sao lab. Your comments at times are more from an acedemic point of view than a real world point of view IMO.

[yuanfen]

Hunt 1 sez:Your comments at times are more from an acedemic point of view than a real world point of view IMO.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Hey wait a cotton picking minute- that is a pseudo distinction.:-
Academics were responsible for "alamogordo" which ushered in a devasatatingly new "real world"... and there are real world folk outside of acdemia who dont think that humans have ever landed on the moon. <g>:D

[Wingman]

... you must bridge to fight no bridge no fight. What you do with the bridge energy is a different question. some know how to use it some dont.

True. When you attack, you create a bridge to your opponent. But beware, the same bridge you created might be used by your opponent to attack you.

[t_niehoff]

Hunt1 wrote:

TN- Thank You for agreeing with my original post. As you said if someone is stronger up the middle you will move to their flank. the heart of the Leung Bik story is just this. Chan Wah was stronger up the middle so Bik was taught other methods ,moving to the flank, of dealing with him. H1

My comment about "if someone is stronger up the middle you will move to their flank" deals with an individual situation, assessed and determined in the moment, not a generality (as in your "Chan Wah was stronger up the middle"). However, if you want to deal with generalities, then it's been my experience that larger persons generally are weaker up the middle (not stronger as your "story" goes) as their width makes it more difficult to keep their jung sien, and so larger folks need to turn to protect their centers. Also, it is easier for larger folks to flank smaller folks. So IMHO the "Chan Wah" doesn't make much sense. TN

Letting me hit you? Dont know where you got this from. I have never met anyone that would let me hit them full power. I must come to St. Loius to train sounds like I would have lots of fun if peeps there will let me hit them. H1

I got it from you saying "If I hit you I will destroy your stucture even if my skill is far below yours." You're always welcome to come to St. Louis, btw; my door is always open. :) TN

I was wrong our WC is different. My Wc is nothing like tennis. My opponent moves but I move first. I dictate I do not react (barring surprise situations) . My opponent tells me all I need to know by his initial stance and his range from me. What he does after that is of no meaning. I dont pay attention to what he does.Round kick,punch,shoot etc all the same. Unless I decide to let him attack first which I have reasons for doing. H1

LOL! Maybe you should pay Rickson a visit and show him how "my opponent tells me all I need to know by his initial stance and his range from me. What he does after that is of no meaning. I dont pay attention to what he does." ;) TN

Bridging, I dont understand your point you must bridge to fight no bridge no fight. H1

I guess it depends on what you mean by "bridge." To me. touching isn't bridging and hitting isn't necessarily bridging; rather bridging is making a connection to the opponent's center of gravity. TN

The best bridge and best method to control the center of gravity is to hit and knockout your opponent. H1

There are more ways IME to defeat the opponent - or control his center - than "to hit and knockout your opponent." Some people can take a lot of punsihment and are very difficult to "knockout". TN

That is the goal everything short of this is on the path to achieve this. H1

Is this your goal? My practice seems to have more options. TN

Bridge to control the cog is chi sao application not fighting application hence my comment about the chi sao lab. Your comments at times are more from an acedemic point of view than a real world point of view IMO. H1

Perhaps you are just much more skilled than I using your "knockout approach." I simply use the WCK method passed down from our ancestors of dap-jeet-chum-biu (join, cut-off the opponent's offense, destroy their structure, and deliver my weapon) in application (not just while sticking). So far it has served me well but I always welcome instruction. TN

Terence

[hunt1]

Yuanfen- your statement is a nonsequitur - Physical skills take practice with a non cooperative partner to learn how to adapt and apply what was learned in the classroom in a controlled setting with a coperative person. If the training hall were indeed the best way to learn then those who fought in the early UFCs would have fared much better. Those that trained in a more relasitic fashion in realistic settings come out on top almost 100% of the time.

[hunt1]

TN your reply is to long for me to reply to every statement hope you dont mind.
As far as Rickson goes.Have never met him but I have had the opportunity to play with 2 Gracie blackbelts and 3 ufc/pride competitors. From my expierience if you pay attention to them you will lose. If you have had the opportunity to go full out with gracie black belts I would be most interested to compare experiences.If you havent them perhaps I do know more about application against grapplers.
.
You should be able to / the goal should be to join, cutoff,destroy structure and deliever all with one move. This is what the WC ancestors passed down.

Options are good to have not every situation requires a violent response. I am not referring to push you push me nonsense in my comments.

[yuanfen]

Hunt- you misread my point. NEVER have I said nor believe that practice with a cooperative partner alone prepares you for dealing witha non cooperative partner. Where in the world
did you get that?
I was kidding you about the usage of academic as disjunctive
with something called the real world....on your reply to Terence.
That distinction doesnt hold in every case and is a common overgenerlization... true in many cases, untrue in others..there are winners and losers in the martial arts who come from all sorts of backgrounds with experience with non cooperative partners.
joy

[hunt1]

Joy- Yu are right and I apologize. I sometimes take things to seriously. I do have trouble at times cathing humor over the net. I suppose I need the visual to feel comfortable with what is being said at times.

Hunter

[yuanfen]

Hunt- no problem. Joy