What is the "standard" ? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

t_niehoff

02-28-2003, 06:52 PM

byond1 wrote:

T- i dont believe you....lol....B1

That's cool . . . look into it yourself. Maybe contact the Hawaii group (Robert Yeung's people?);they have some good info. TN

yip man taught in the late 40's using the standard 3 forms.....jiu chow, lun gai, gwok fu ect. B1

Yup. I was talking about HK though. TN

Y.M left for H.K in 1949... and started teaching leung sheung in late 1949 early 1950.s...almost immediatly....poverty forced him to teach....leung sheung knew what wing chun was and what it contained!!...he was a student of weng chun sigung tang suen...he knew the differances between wing chun and weng chun... Y.M also used san sik to teach early students as sum num did.....but did not exclude the 3 forms. B1

Again, don't take my word for it (neither of us were there), do some checking. I didn't say, fwiw, that he didn't teach the forms only that he didn't initially teach the forms and it seemed like he hadn't intended to (until the cat was let out of the bag). TN

Terence

02-28-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
byond1 wrote:

T- i dont believe you....lol....B1

That's cool . . . look into it yourself. Maybe contact the Hawaii group (Robert Yeung's people?);they have some good info. TN

yip man taught in the late 40's using the standard 3 forms.....jiu chow, lun gai, gwok fu ect. B1

Yup. I was talking about HK though. TN

Y.M left for H.K in 1949... and started teaching leung sheung in late 1949 early 1950.s...almost immediatly....poverty forced him to teach....leung sheung knew what wing chun was and what it contained!!...he was a student of weng chun sigung tang suen...he knew the differances between wing chun and weng chun... Y.M also used san sik to teach early students as sum num did.....but did not exclude the 3 forms. B1

Again, don't take my word for it (neither of us were there), do some checking. I didn't say, fwiw, that he didn't teach the forms only that he didn't initially teach the forms and it seemed like he hadn't intended to (until the cat was let out of the bag). TN

Terence

This is inconsistent with my understanding, though I'll do my best to check and recheck. It is my hope that others associated with Yip Man's early Hong Kong students - especially others close to or in the lineages of Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu and Tsui Sheun Tin - will attempt to do likewise, lest any of us allow what little of Wing Chun history can yet be accurately traced to be misrepresented in the longer term.

To help clarify and give substance to your assertion, can you provide any specific information? For examples,

a) Who and how many do you believe were taught in this manner? Also, are you referring to Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheun Tin, the Restaurant Workers Association, and others in that time period, or are you alluding to someone earlier?

b) For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of forms and is it significant? (e.g. the first 5 minutes, the first 5 months, the first 5 years, etc.)

c) In light of the fact that teachers often tailor their training to students or try different methods at different times, what led you to believe it was Yip Man's "reluctance" to teach the forms rather than simply the approach he took with a particular student or set of students?

d) Can you provide verifiable and corroborating sources of information?

TIA,
- Kathy Jo

tparkerkfo

03-01-2003, 03:20 PM

Hi Terence and KJ,

That is quite an interesting comment. I have never heard this before, so I take it it is not common knowledge. Would anyone be willing to provide any info on this?

Perhaps it was meant in a general sense rather than litteral. Perhaps Yip Man taught the first group of people a couple simple drills prior to the form or as they were learning it. Thinking about to day, one may learn the opening of the form and maybe a simple tan da or something like that just to keep the appitite whet.

What we know, and much of it maybe exageration, is that Leung Sheung was teaching and Yip Man was able to handle the experienced Leung Sheung quite easily with a couple simple moves. Perhaps he explained these simple moves prior to showing the forms. But in any case, what is the context of this assertion?

It almost sounds like Yip Man ignored the forms in favor of the san sik. Is this what your suggesting? I wonder why he would go back to the forms, as would the other students. Lok Yiu teaches the forms. TST puts lots of emplasis on the forms. Leung Sheung students all praise the importance of the forms.

Interesting

Tom
________
Spire double caliber magnum pellets (http://airsoft-shop.info/p/spire-double-caliber-magnum-pellets/)

byond1

03-02-2003, 02:18 PM

T--i have looked into over the past 2 years....wong long and wong chuk were not the first generation of ym students anyway so ...i dont see how they could know what ym taught leung sheung...who learned 4 years before wsl and 2 years before chu shong tin. lok yiu started just after leung sheung if memory serves....as i said....leung sheung was a very experianced martial artist and knew waht wc was....there was no cat to let out of the bag......leung sheung studied weng chun under tang suen...as did pak cheung.....he knew the differance between what tang suen did and what leung jan did.

reneritchie

03-02-2003, 08:25 PM

There are at least 2 conflicting stories about the early days of Yip Man's teachings.

1) Leung Sheung knew Weng Chun from Tang Suen, recognized Lee Man's Huen Sao, sought out Yip Man, and got him to start the first WCK class where they immediately learned SNT, etc.

2) Yip Man didn't tell his students what he was teaching them, he just taught them fighting moves, and it wasn't until someone else visited who knew it was WCK and told the students that they went to Yip and he had to teach them the sets, etc.

Who knows what really happened? Maybe only Lok Yiu, and maybe only if he remembers it well and is willing to share it.

BTW- Though people talk of Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheung-Tin, etc. like a 1-2-3, there were many people in the first class with Leung Sheung and the restaurant workers, and many other classes started up in the early days. There were lots of early students, even before Tsui Sheung-Tin. Most just didn't stay very long.

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 05:57 AM

RR is correct. There are two versions of the history. I tend to believe Wong Long's version as it makes sense to me, is specific, and doesn't self-aggrandize. TN

KJ writes: For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of forms and is it significant? (e.g. the first 5 minutes, the first 5 months, the first 5 years, etc.) KJ

San sao *are* forms (just as Gu Lao has san sik forms); they are just not the linked sets of SNT/CK/etc. Thus Yip Man did teach forms, just not the linked sets. Why is this surprising? WCK is in the application. It makes sense to me that if Yip were trying to teach an initial group to achieve some level of fighting competance (skill) quickly (so that they can impress, and teach, others and bring you more students and more $), he might forego having his students spend time practicing linked sets. If you have questions about how Yip Man taught, do the research -- you've been pointed in the direction. TN

byond1 writes: T--i have looked into over the past 2 years....wong long and wong chuk were not the first generation of ym students anyway so ...i dont see how they could know what ym taught leung sheung...who learned 4 years before wsl and 2 years before chu shong tin. lok yiu started just after leung sheung if memory serves.... B1

I've looked into this too -- for 20 years. WL and WC were "first generation students" (all of Yip's students in HK are considered 1st generation). You are correct about different folks coming it at different times, but fail to take into account how much WCK material Leung Sheung or others learned with their "headstart." If they didn't have that much of a headstart (in terms of material, but let's say mainly the same core san sik that they just got very good at applying), it would be easy for others starting later to see what, and how, they learned. TN

Terence

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 08:14 AM

Inferences are really problematic in reconstructing post facto what happened. Some logic, some induction and ultimately judgements are involved in the mix.

To me- yes-- Ip man, Leung Jan or any other great can show someone isolated movements for their improvement- but that does not mean that forms were unimportant for their serious teaching. Also IM several times pointed out that slt and ck and chi sao should provide the ability to meaningfully use wing chun.
Casual students can get some movements but not the real foundations.

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 09:29 AM

Hi Joy,

Yuenfen writes:

Ip man, Leung Jan or any other great can show someone isolated movements for their improvement- but that does not mean that forms were unimportant for their serious teaching. Also IM several times pointed out that slt and ck and chi sao should provide the ability to meaningfully use wing chun.
Casual students can get some movements but not the real foundations. JC

San sik as I understand them are not simply "isolated movements"; rather they contain the core points of WCK as do the linked sets (the sets are only linked san sik arranged thematically), are progressive (they build on each other and provide the "foundations"), etc. Neither linked sets or san sik, in and of themselves, "provide the ability to meaningfully use WCK." Serious study of WCK is not dependent on the teaching platform IME. TN

Terence

tparkerkfo

03-03-2003, 10:08 AM

Hi Terence and Rene,

I am not suggesting your info is bad because it may well be true. But your citing the sources almost as if they were there. You suggest that you beleive the story because there is no self grandisement. Well, that is an important aspect to take into account as people tend to exagerate or even lie at times. But if Neil Armstrong was to tell me he was the first man on the moon, self grandisment or not, I would pretty much have to agree with him.

Anyways, I can not recall for a fact so I will double check next time I get a chance, but I recall a discussion that said Leung Sheung WAS very aware of wing chun before Yip Man. He was not blindly training away until someone came and told him what he was practicing. But like I said, I don't recall the info I was given.

Also, I am not suggesting that they didn't focus on the san sau stuff, but that I have not heard that and I am a tad skeptical that they learned it in the place of the forms. I would beleive they would have learned it simultaneously. Anyways, I will do what research, is that REALLY the correct term, that I can when I can. LOL. TST and Lok Yiu are probably the only two left alive that probably have the "authority" to say what really was taught in the early years. I would tend to beleive the students of these people as well.
tom
________
Free gift cards (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/)

John Weiland

03-03-2003, 11:32 AM

Hi Tom,

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
Hi Terence and Rene,

I am not suggesting your info is bad because it may well be true.

But, probably isn't. :p

But you're citing the sources almost as if they were there. You suggest that you beleive the story because there is no self agrandisement.

Just as people post made-up stuff on KFO to appear knowledgeable or important, so do "sources" puff themselves up by trying to appear to know some unique info. And this despite it contradicts Leung Sheung's students' understanding. :rolleyes:

Well, that is an important aspect to take into account as people tend to exagerate or even lie at times. But if Neil Armstrong was to tell me he was the first man on the moon, self agrandisment or not, I would pretty much have to agree with him.

You're easy. :D

Anyways, I can not recall for a fact, so I will double check next time I get a chance, but I recall a discussion that said Leung Sheung WAS very aware of wing chun before Yip Man. He was not blindly training away until someone came and told him what he was practicing. But like I said, I don't recall the info I was given.

Yes. Leung Sheung had heard about Wing Chun AND Yip Man as its proponent, and LS wanted to study with YM.
From the BAWCSA bio section (http://www.bawcsa.org/)

Leung Sheung had heard about Wing Chun since he was quite young, but as Wing Chun was quite secretive and well protected, he had never seen it; but, this martial art intrigued him, as did the stories about one of its teachers, Yip Man. The thought that he would take Wing Chun at his first opportunity was beginning to emerge as a prominent thought in the back of his mind.

Mr. Lee, also an officer in the Restaurant Association, in 1949, found out that Yip Man was currently in Hong Kong. Knowing Leung Sheung's interest in Wing Chun and Yip Man, he informed Leung Sheung that Yip Man was in town. Leung Sheung urged Mr. Lee to introduce him to Yip Man. By the time they met, Leung Sheung had already decided that he wanted to learn Wing Chun from Yip Man. He would provide the flat for Yip Man to teach in. In addition, Leung Sheung would turn over his White Eyebrow class to Yip Man, and he would become a student again.

Also, I am not suggesting that they didn't focus on the san sau stuff, but that I have not heard that and I am a tad skeptical that they learned it in the place of the forms.

You are right to be skeptical. It likely isn't true, and in the interest of truth, one must question the intentions of any folks making such assertions. According to Ken Chung, Leung Sheung said he taught everything exactly as he had learned it from Yip Man and that he (Leung Sheung) had gotten maybe 85 percent of what Yip Man knew. I will check with Ken or Ben for their recollection of this, but I doubt that YM changed his teaching as suggested in this thread.

I would beleive they would have learned it simultaneously. Anyways, I will do what research, is that REALLY the correct term,

Yes, but the word is often misused. :p

that I can when I can. LOL. TST and Lok Yiu are probably the only two left alive that probably have the "authority"

I disagree that they are the only two that could tell us, but they would know certainly. :cool:

to say what really was taught in the early years. I would tend to beleive the students of these people as well.

I would also believe the students of Leung Sheung, as well. During their study in Hong Kong, they often heard Leung Sheung speak for the entire Wing Chun community at Yip Man's behest in Yip Man's ceremonial dinners. :cool:

Regards,

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 12:54 PM

John Weiland writes:

Just as people post made-up stuff on KFO to appear knowledgeable or important, so do "sources" puff themselves up by trying to appear to know some unique info. And this despite it contradicts Leung Sheung's students' understanding. JW

These things are not "secret" nor am I making them up to "appear knowledgeable or important" -- hell, YM's san sik are even up on the web, see

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/methods/forms/supbaatsansao.html

And this has in the past been discussed on the WCML at least twice that I recall. God forbid that I contradict Leung Sheung's students! After all, they and only they know the real truth. ;) TN

Terence

John Weiland

03-03-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff

These things are not "secret" nor am I making them up to "appear knowledgeable or important" -- hell, YM's san sik are even up on the web, see
http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/methods/forms/supbaatsansao.html]WingchunKuen.com article

I know you are not making them up. But, you are proliferating them.

The reference reads:
The Sup Baat San Sao (18 Separate Hands) are believed to be a rare and informal part of the Yip Man Wing Chun Kuen system taught by the late Yip Man to some of his early students. (my emphasis)

Rare and informal suggests what to you? To me, it doesn't sound representational of Yip Man Wing Chun. The source also doesn't post a referenceable source for this assertion, nor does it cite examples of who was taught in this manner. It cites Robert Chu and John D. (sic) for special thanks.

And this has in the past been discussed on the WCML at least twice that I recall.

As you may know, I am not allowed membership on the WCML for my views on Wing Chun and some of its obscure minor, and need I say, often bizarre, lineages and their adherents. :rolleyes: Hence, I am not privy to the discussions you mention.

God forbid that I contradict Leung Sheung's students! After all, they and only they know the real truth. ;) TN

At least we are in agreement on this latter point. :p But on the list of those in the know, I'd also include Lok Yiu and TST, and a host of others. :D

I consider those teachers who want to rewrite Wing Chun history to be in violation of the kuen kuit principle of teachers showing their students the truth. :(

Regards,

03-03-2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
RR is correct. There are two versions of the history. I tend to believe Wong Long's version as it makes sense to me, is specific, and doesn't self-aggrandize. TN

Thank you for explaining your reasoning.

I have found few students and families of Wing Chun descending from Ip Man who put more emphasis on the linked sets (in deference to your preferred phrase) than the early Hong Kong students including Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, and Tsui Sheun Tin. Unless they had, in theory at least, a) learned only via san sik at the beginning and b) found significant shortcomings in that method of learning, I don’t see why they would subsequently c) express such an adamant emphasis on the standard forms or "linked sets" for training, d) not only for their students but e) in their own practice as well.

Tom, Joy and Brian also aptly stated some issues that I agree are relevant, so I'll avoid restating those.

KJ writes: For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of forms and is it significant? (e.g. the first 5 minutes, the first 5 months, the first 5 years, etc.) KJ

San sao *are* forms (just as Gu Lao has san sik forms); they are just not the linked sets of SNT/CK/etc. Thus Yip Man did teach forms, just not the linked sets. Why is this surprising? WCK is in the application. It makes sense to me that if Yip were trying to teach an initial group to achieve some level of fighting competance (skill) quickly (so that they can impress, and teach, others and bring you more students and more $), he might forego having his students spend time practicing linked sets.

Okay, I can follow that. It is neither inconsistent with what I wrote, nor necessarily different than the usual variations in day-to-day training that any of us might experience. Still, and in hopes of understanding your assertion more clearly, I'll rephrase the question:

b) For how long do you believe that Yip Man taught only san sau at the exclusion of “linked sets,” and is it significant?

Also, and again,

a) Who and how many do you believe were taught in this manner? Also, are you referring to Leung Sheung, Lok Yiu, Tsui Sheun Tin, the Restaurant Workers Association, and others in that time period, or are you alluding to someone earlier?

And at this juncture, again to clarify, are you referring to Wong Long and Wong Chuk in answer to this question?

c) In light of the fact that teachers often tailor their training to students or try different methods at different times, what led you to believe it was Yip Man's "reluctance" to teach the forms rather than simply the approach he took with a particular student or set of students?

Again to clarify, are you now proposing that it was Ip Man's desire to crank out performers quickly that was his incentive to teach via san sik exclusive to "linked sets" at first? If so, how do you believe this resolves with a theoretical reluctance to teach the linked sets "until the cat was let out of the bag?" Either way, the implications are interesting to speculate.

d) Where I asked, "can you provide verifiable and corroborating sources of information," do you again refer to Wong Long and Wong Chuk?

These questions are relevant specifically to your assertion, regardless of whatever independent information I or others may or may not uncover on the issue. So thanking you again and in advance for your clarifications.

If you have questions about how Yip Man taught, do the research -- you've been pointed in the direction. TN

As I stated, this is interesting enough that I will continue to inquire on this issue in the broader sense as I am able. All things being equal, I confess to having more urgent priorities and can't drop everything else in favor of it, especially with so many avenues to be explored for corroboration and to gain a well-rounded understanding the circumstances. In the meantime, it is the basis of your theory which is appropriately of interest.

Last but not least, (and again, if you will) do you believe that your theory that Ip Man initially taught only "unlinked sets" during his early time in Hong Kong is important? If so, why is it important?

Everyone is biased in some fashion or other (e.g., whether self-aggrandizers, interpreters of history, those just curious, trying to learn, readers of this forum, etc.). While the bias factor is not irrelevant, discounting something on that basis alone, as Tom suggested, doesn't seem prudent. And until we realize the types of technologies foreshadowed in "Minority Report,” we are necessarily on shaky ground any time we make assumptions about the motivations of others. Still, the topic is interesting, and I would like to understand the reasoning behind your conclusions more clearly.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

tparkerkfo

03-03-2003, 01:59 PM

Hi Terence,

it is not that the leung sheung students know the "truth". It is just more likely that they are aware of Leung Sheung's teaching than people further removed. IE, if you, who are NOT a student of the source you learned if from. And the source you learned it from was not there. So if the Leung Sheung people can be wrong, then why couldn't the guys from Hawaii?

I think it matters little in any case. Leung Sheung's reputation and skill was not based on the order he learned the art. Nor is his students. But it is an interesting story non the less. In any case, John pointed out one source on the web which comes as close as you can get, in regards to Leung Sheung. I heard if from another source as well from the Leung Sheung lineage. The only other viable options is the senior students of Leung Sheung as well as Lok Yiu and maybe TST. Unless you can find the original students that were with Leung Sheung.

Another Interesting thing is that Leung Sheung taught Leung Ting the form at his first lesson, which he says is the "traditional way".

As your well aware, we need to becareful of an account of something from just one source. It may be better to beleive the concensous of many people rather than the once source approach. Have you heard this story from other sources?

Tom
________
SHEMALE LESBIAN (http://www.****tube.com/categories/967/lesbian/videos/1)

planetwc

03-03-2003, 02:57 PM

Where can one read about Wong Long's version of the training?

Wong Long started Wing Chun under Yip Man in 1956.

Wong Chok started Wing Chun under Yip Man around 1953.

Leung Sheung and Lok Yiu started Wing Chun under Yip Man in late 1949 early 1950.

It would appear then that Lok Yiu, as he is still alive, would be the most knowledgable as to what occurred during that time period before both Wong Long and Wong Chok began their training with Yip Man.

Just as I'd give him more credence than William Cheung with regard to William's tale of the meeting and demonstration of skill between Yip Man and Leung Sheung as William did not begin his training until 1954, at least 4-5 years after that event occured.

Thanks,

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 05:28 PM

I don't see the big issue. Clearly WCK can be taught with or without linked sets. Lots of our ancestors - Cheung Bo, Leung Jan, etc. - have used the san sik format to teach; some have used linked sets; and some have used both linked sets and san sik. Someone that truly understands a subject doesn't need to regurgitate material just as he or she learned it, and WCK by its very nature can't be taught that way IMO. We have two of Yip Man's students, Wong Long and Wong Chok, from the early 50's saying that Yip taught for a time in HK with san sik. I haven't heard from any YM student saying that Yip absolutely didn't do that. But things in YM's school aren't always clear -- we have YM students saying the Leung Bik story was true, and other YM students saying it was made up by Lee Man. Who is lying and who is telling the truth? TN

KJ, if you want answers to your historical questions you'll need to do research yourself. The only reason I raised this was in response to the "forms as curriculum" point Eric B. made. Does it matter to me if YM did or didn't? Not IMHO. WCK is in the application; it is our opponent's that teach us how to make our WCK work, not a linked set or a series of san sik. TN

Terence

planetwc

03-03-2003, 05:53 PM

Ultimately I don't see it as an issue either, other than to verify that what is being said did or did not occur. Because all the early students trained and then taught their own students via the "linked sets" and a similar training regimen. Just as the later first generation and second generation etc. students did.

If someone said Yip Man incorporated Shuai Chiao and Jujutsu into his early Wing Chun teaching after his adventures in mainland China and Japan respectively, I'd at least like some sort of correlation that the information was verifiable before just accepting it.

Lok Yiu is the seniormost living Hong Kong student of Yip Man.
He would be the one I would want to hear from with regards to what did or did not go on in the early restaurant workers union classes.

tparkerkfo

03-03-2003, 07:04 PM

Hi Terence,

Likewise I was not challenging you to protect any position or anything. I have always had an intrest in the history of Wing Chun. Your comments were interesting and I personally would like to hear more. I just found it a bit odd as it kind of went against what I was told directly and indirectly. Like I said before, it doesn't affect the skills Leung Sheung had. Wing Chun is a complete package that includes the forms and free hands.

If Wong Long and Wong Chuk have different perspectives, then that is great and probably important. Maybe I missed this, was their comments meaning that the first group of students all practiced this? Or that it continued for a while with their own training? Were they speaking of Leung Sheung's training or their own?

Thanks for the insites.
Tom
________
JAILBROKEN (http://jailbroken.org/)

03-03-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by t_niehoff
KJ, if you want answers to your historical questions you'll need to do research yourself. The only reason I raised this was in response to the "forms as curriculum" point Eric B. made. Does it matter to me if YM did or didn't? Not IMHO. WCK is in the application; it is our opponent's that teach us how to make our WCK work, not a linked set or a series of san sik. TN

My questions were aimed at understanding your reasoning, not an attempt to pry into your personal research, though they are obviously related. The subject was legitimately interesting, though no worries if you don't want to discuss. Thanks for your concluding thoughts above nonetheless.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 09:05 PM

TN sez:I don't see the big issue. Clearly WCK can be taught with or without linked sets. Lots of our ancestors - Cheung Bo, Leung Jan, etc. - have used the san sik format to teach;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure there can be some exposure to wing chun without forms-
but I dont think that it will be exposure in depth. Its possible that IM showed some people moves without teaching them forms and I can understand that LJ after retirement in his 3 or less remaining years showeda few folks movements without teaching the full form. Glimpses of a subject and teachinga subject in depth are quite different things.

About an opponent showing what should be done- true to a degree- but only good training results in seizing the moment.

A good form will have things arrnged in it in appropriate ways to
to link motions and concepts with proper flow. And the sequences are there for specific reasons. Untill the elbows are trained properly in slt- chum kiu elbows and their chamges wont work very well.

In any case I disagree with TN on this issue.

t_niehoff

03-03-2003, 09:24 PM

yuenfen writes:

Sure there can be some exposure to wing chun without forms-
but I dont think that it will be exposure in depth. Its possible that IM showed some people moves without teaching them forms and I can understand that LJ after retirement in his 3 or less remaining years showeda few folks movements without teaching the full form. Glimpses of a subject and teachinga subject in depth are quite different things. JC

Gu Lao/Koo Lo is WCK without linked sets; Sum Nung's sup yee sik has a great deal of depth. What are the linked sets but san sik that are linked? Can't one learn tan, bong, fook, the punch, YJKYM, etc. separately and then combine the points? Isn't that what we do with tan da (where is that in the first form, yet we still learn to do it)? TN

About an opponent showing what should be done- true to a degree- but only good training results in seizing the moment. JC

"The moment" you refer to comes from the opponent; dealing with the opponent - or partner - is the training. You learn to box by boxing in the ring; you learn to wrestle by wrestling on the mat. TN

A good form will have things arranged in it in appropriate ways to
to link motions and concepts with proper flow. And the sequences are there for specific reasons. Untill the elbows are trained properly in slt- chum kiu elbows and their chamges wont work very well. JC

I never said that there isn't a progression in san sik. Like anything else, one needs the foundation to build from. I do think that the WCK sets are brilliantly choreographed, however. TN

In any case I disagree with TN on this issue. JC

What? Are you breaking up the anti-HFY conspiracy group? ;) TN

Terence

yuanfen

03-03-2003, 09:50 PM

Bracketed brief answers-mercifully- to TN

yuenfen writes:

((Its YUANFEN- ask Rene))

Gu Lao/Koo Lo is WCK without linked sets; Sum Nung's sup yee sik has a great deal of depth. What are the linked sets but san sik that are linked?

((Peano's postulates links numbers- otherwise you just have some apples. My point holds good koo lo notwithstanding.))

Can't one learn tan, bong, fook, the punch, YJKYM, etc. separately and then combine the points?
((more to it))

Isn't that what we do with tan da (where is that in the first form, yet we still learn to do it)? TN

((Its there- even in the slt<g>))

About an opponent showing what should be done- true to a degree- but only good training results in seizing the moment. JC

"The moment" you refer to comes from the opponent; dealing with the opponent - or partner - is the training. You learn to box by boxing in the ring; you learn to wrestle by wrestling on the mat. TN
((The appropriate reflex training is needed-not just cerebral inderstanding. WC is more comprehensive and long lasting than boxing. And no- you just dont learn boxing in the ring. You will get only tough man contests that way))

A good form will have things arranged in it in appropriate ways to
to link motions and concepts with proper flow. And the sequences are there for specific reasons. Untill the elbows are trained properly in slt- chum kiu elbows and their chamges wont work very well. JC

I never said that there isn't a progression in san sik. Like anything else, one needs the foundation to build from. I do think that the WCK sets are brilliantly choreographed, however. TN

((i have never liked the term choreographed --- aint ballet or the movie Chicago- I will miss the choreography since I wont take my eyes of Zeta Jones. Michael Douglas is the dirty old man))

In any case I disagree with TN on this issue. JC

What? Are you breaking up the anti-HFY conspiracy group? TN

((Many theories are partly correct- even conspiracy theories.
Occams razor awaits... and you are not the only one from Missouri
in a space-time continuum on some recent issues))Joy C

Terence

byond1

03-04-2003, 03:47 PM

T--i wonder if 20 years of leasurely study amounts to 2 years of intense historical research with the actually gentleman you talk about? 20 years is a long time to do something wrong as well....
as david pointed out the wongs started years after the first generation...which included leung sheung and yip bo ching if im not mistaken and than lok yiu and as mentioned there are bunchs of" little known" students
you may not break up yip mans classes/teaching periods but i do and i do not consider everyone that learned from yip man his first generation student.....there are very specific classes with very specific teaching periods .....l
and because yip mans san sik are listed on a web page....that is supposed to lend weight to you argument?? by that logic everything posted on anyweb sight would obviously be truth...yes??
a direct leung sheung student has told me, that leung sheung showed them weng chun ....so they could see the differance in what leung sheung called siu lum weng chun......
again look at pre fatsan yip man.....4 forms, jong, knives, 6.5 ... he taught his first generation using the traditional chan wah shun method, so why would he not start out his first student in H.K with snt and san sik drills which are included in all wck...but you cant say san sik was his exclusive method of transmitting his knowledge....if that were truth... many of us wouldnt be doing slt,ck,bj,hj,jong,,ect.....
of cource if you provided proof, i may believe!!!

t_niehoff

03-04-2003, 04:12 PM

byond1 wrote:

T--i wonder if 20 years of leasurely study amounts to 2 years of intense historical research with the actually gentleman you talk about? 20 years is a long time to do something wrong as well....

LOL! Yeah, just 20 "leasurely" years wasting my time . . . certainly nothing like what you've done in your two years of intense historical research. ;) TN

as david pointed out the wongs started years after the first generation...which included leung sheung and yip bo ching if im not mistaken and than lok yiu and as mentioned there are bunchs of" little known" students
you may not break up yip mans classes/teaching periods but i do and i do not consider everyone that learned from yip man his first generation student.....there are very specific classes with very specific teaching periods .....b1

Thanks for explaining your personal definition of "first generation"; how could I have been so silly to use the accepted definition and not yours. ;) And I'm sorry if I happen to think that someone, like the Wongs, may be able to find out what was going on with their school during and before they were there (like by talking with older students). TN

and because yip mans san sik are listed on a web page....that is supposed to lend weight to you argument?? by that logic everything posted on anyweb sight would obviously be truth...yes?? B1

Merely pointing out -- as I mentioned in other posts -- that this isn't anything "new." TN

a direct leung sheung student has told me, that leung sheung showed them weng chun ....so they could see the differance in what leung sheung called siu lum weng chun......B1

So? Have I ever said LS didn't know something about weng chun? TN

again look at pre fatsan yip man.....4 forms, jong, knives, 6.5 ...B1

I suppose you mean YM's foshan students (pre-HK)? Yup. So what? No one, including me, have said Yip didn't know the forms. ;) TN

he taught his first generation using the traditional chan wah shun method, so why would he not start out his first student in H.K with snt and san sik drills which are included in all wck...but you cant say san sik was his exclusive method of transmitting his knowledge....if that were truth... many of us wouldnt be doing slt,ck,bj,hj,jong,,ect.....B1

Obviously Yip had to begin teaching the linked sets, and if you look at my initial post on the subject I explained how that came about (or so the story goes). Look, Brian, I wasn't there and you weren't there. Two folks that we know of that were in HK at Yip's school say Yip taught initially with just san sik. I don't know why they would lie about that -- perhaps you have some thoughts? I've not heard from anyone else that was there that it *specifically* didn't happen. Have you? My mind is not made up. The account makes sense to me. But it could be false. Until I have other evidence to the contrary, I'm leaning toward believing the Wong account. TN

of cource if you provided proof, i may believe!!! B1

From my pov, all the evidence is on my side (I've got two witnesses to zero right now). TN

Terence

tparkerkfo

03-04-2003, 04:41 PM

Terence,

Not sure if your ignoring my questions or are answering them indirectly. I am confused, did the wong's learn this way, or were they suggesting the first group of students learned this way?

TST came a little bit after Lok Yiu and Leung Sheung, but I thought before the Wongs. TST does not say how LY and LS learned, but he says he learned SLT on the first day. I don't think you can contradict that as he is still alive and that is what he said he learned.

Tom
________
Toys erotic (http://www.****tube.com/categories/1093/erotic/videos/1)

tparkerkfo

03-04-2003, 04:55 PM

Hi Terence,

Forgot a couple of things,

Where did you here about this story? Is it posted on a web site? I think many of us would like to see it in context, especially if we are expected to beleive it. If it is not posted or published anywere, where did you hear it? Directly from the Wong's? Or from one of there students? If it was from one of their students, why would they be any more credible that students of Leung Sheung?

Also, I wonder why every one who learned these san sik first dropped teaching them specifically in the begining to favor the forms? Leung Sheung taught the forms on the first day according to several first hand accounts to include Leung Ting's own discription in addition to others. TST also says he learned SLT on his first day. Why are the forms the prefered way of learning and why don't the san sik play a prominant role in the art as a training tool? Meaning we have the forms and various drills along with various methods of Chi sau. But you don't hear much about san sik specifically like you do in YKS or KooLo wing chun.

Its interesting, but I would like to see or hear the Wong's account of the story.

Tom
________
The apprentice dicussion (http://www.tv-gossip.com/apprentice/)

burnsypoo

03-04-2003, 05:32 PM

if you get into a pak sau drill (san sik?) on the first day...
that count? Seems pretty reasonable.

t_niehoff

03-05-2003, 05:43 AM

Hi Tom,

Tom, I wasn't ignoring you, just that I thought my previous posts had addressed your questions. TN

tomparkerfo wrote:

I am confused, did the wong's learn this way, or were they suggesting the first group of students learned this way? TP

As I understand it (which means, check for yourself -- as Yip Man said, "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you."), Yip Man when he first began teaching in HK taught WCK via san sik for some time until the some of the students became aware that there were 'kuen to' and then he began teaching those. How long this lasted I'm not certain. TN

TST does not say how LY and LS learned, but he says he learned SLT on the first day. I don't think you can contradict that as he is still alive and that is what he said he learned. TP

That may be true, I don't know. Where/when did TST say this? TN

Where did you here about this story? Is it posted on a web site? I think many of us would like to see it in context, especially if we are expected to beleive it. If it is not posted or published anywere, where did you hear it? TP

This "story" has been around for quite a while. I learned it via the Hawaii group (via Robert Yeung, John Deviglio, etc.). As I said in my other posts, there are lots of conflicting stories (did Yip Man learn from Leung Bik?) -- and I don't care what you or anyone believes (I'm not trying to prove anything about history). TN

I wonder why every one who learned these san sik first dropped teaching them specifically in the begining to favor the forms? Why are the forms the prefered way of learning and why don't the san sik play a prominant role in the art as a training tool? Meaning we have the forms and various drills along with various methods of Chi sau. But you don't hear much about san sik specifically like you do in YKS or KooLo wing chun. TP

Did you learn tan da, pak da, guan da with turning, then stepping, etc. when you first began? That's san sik. The drills like lop sao, turning punch, pak da, etc.? San sik. I don't think that the forms are "the preferred way" of learning. The linked sets are nothing more than san sik linked thematically. So the sets are san sik and san sik are forms. WCK is WCK. TN

Terence

reneritchie

03-05-2003, 09:23 AM

I don't really understand the problem here, none of this really seems mutually contradictory. It just seems people have chosen what (or who) to believe and get testy if others believe different. Same old, same old.

FWIW, Yip Man was said by many (including his own students in print) to have been a reluctant teacher at best, teaching only when he had to to earn money to live. Would it make sense, then, for him to quickly and completely teach the sets so someone (as later happened) could go open up down the street and compete with him?

You can teach a punch before SLT, a few movements like Tan Da, a turn or a step. Is it a big deal? It's obvious his early students learned the hand sets within a few years anyway.

BTW - I don't recommend taking anyone's word for any of this. Even if unconcious, the tradition is one of respect and giving face, and people tend to view such things through rose colored glasses, or through the hopes of looking good to those they speak. How many really learned the complete knives directly from Yip Man? How many say they did? Far fewer of the former than the latter, but people "believe" who they want (usually theirs and no one elses). It's a childish way to look at all this.

Another thing to consider - Where's the kneeling horse? It's in the San Sik the Wong's talk about. Yip Man used it in Foshan. I believe Tom Kagen mentioned something about it in the Moy Yat family. Perhaps that's one way to sort through what was taught, to who, and when.

And John - You were, and are, and will be welcome any time on the WCML. Only you have ever decided when and if you participate.

RR

tparkerkfo

03-05-2003, 10:30 AM

Hi Terence,

-Terence: Tom, I wasn't ignoring you, just that I thought my previous posts had addressed your questions. TN

LOL, That is what I figured, but I did have a couple questions, which you answered this time...thanks. Tom

-Terence: As I understand it (which means, check for yourself -- as Yip Man said, "Go out and test it for yourself, I may be tricking you."), Yip Man when he first began teaching in HK taught WCK via san sik for some time until the some of the students became aware that there were 'kuen to' and then he began teaching those. How long this lasted I'm not certain. TN

So, they didn't say that they learned this way, only that Yip Man taught this way for some period of time. Perhaps a day, week, year, etc. This is interesting, and I don't suggest that it didn't happen, though I think it is wierd since Leung Sheung was well aware of the forms. So if Yip Man taught this way, I would think it was more of to keep the forms for himself or to teach the applicable aspects first. But I have a hard time he was hiding the fact that they existed. Most people would assume that there were forms simply because almost every style has them, so why wouldn't these people think different of wingh chun? Interesting though. Tom

-Terence:That may be true, I don't know. Where/when did TST say this? [regarding TST learning SLT od Day One] TN

I double checked and it wasn't his writtings, or atleast appears not to be his writtings. It is a short biography of him from one of his affiliate schools. I would assume this holds weight, but can't beleive everything you read and hear: ) And for what its worth, Leung Ting said the same in his Roots book. The web site for TST is: http://www.hchwingchun.com.au/life.htm

-Terence: This "story" has been around for quite a while. I learned it via the Hawaii group (via Robert Yeung, John Deviglio, etc.). As I said in my other posts, there are lots of conflicting stories (did Yip Man learn from Leung Bik?) -- and I don't care what you or anyone believes (I'm not trying to prove anything about history). TN

Just to put this in perspective, you suggested earlier, if I recall corectly, that we can't beleive sources removed in regards to what we heard Leung Sheung students said. This sounds exactly like the same thing. If you personally heard if from the Wong's, that would be different. But this seems to have the same weight as what Leung Sheung students have said. Not that either prove anything though. LOL. Yes lots of conflicting stories. I am not really challenging your story, but just would like to hear more so we can hopfully validate it or not. tom

-Terence: Did you learn tan da, pak da, guan da with turning, then stepping, etc. when you first began? That's san sik. The drills like lop sao, turning punch, pak da, etc.? San sik. I don't think that the forms are "the preferred way" of learning. The linked sets are nothing more than san sik linked thematically. So the sets are san sik and san sik are forms. WCK is WCK. TN

Yes I learned some stuff early on. I did learn the set, or a significant portion of it first. The form teaches things that I don't think drilling san sik can teach. I don't think the sets are merely linked san siks. I think the sets are not even really san sik. San Sik, to me, seem to be a way to drill a specific technique. The forms are not in my opinion for this. They are to focus on other aspects other than actual combat methods. The key is percision and other traits that come into play. Both are thus important, but the forms tend to refine traits that are needed for the indipendent san sik.
tom

I am not suggesting a lack of importance or even saying what was taught. It is all important! I just want to hear the story and make sure we put the emphasis on the right thing. It seems the forms have become the standard method for early training for what ever reason. The san sik in Yip Man's branch don't hold significance importance as being singled out like they do in YKS and KooLoo. Of course that doesn't mean they are not important. But what do we call san sik in Yip Man WCK? Are they specific technqiues or any independent motion?

Oh well, Thanks for answering.

Tom
________
Zx14 vs hayabusa (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_bike_is_quicker_kawasaki_zx_-14_or_suzuki_hayabusa)

yuanfen

03-05-2003, 12:45 PM

sansik is just a name- not a concept.
One can take a beginning student and have him standing in a corner- just punching before he is ready for learning a form.
Purpose- developmental-getting him/her to minimize usage of local musculature alone relaxing the shoulders and pectorals etc..

This does not mean that good wing chun can ignore forms-
but a teacher can do different things to help develop a specific student. And as has been pointed out Ip man didnt teach everyone all the forms. Some learned from each other- which is no disgrace...if they have learned the right things.

And, there is much more to the forms than learning the sequence.
I am often puzzled and even amused by folks who claim that they learned the entire Ip Man system because they know the sequence of the forms.

The knives and the pole and the dummy are extensions of the 3 hand forms. And even the first two hand forms are good enough for fighting brcause the roots of biu jee are in there too.

So someone who has learned the first two hand forms very very well- can be formidable.