3 Points About TWC

[Ultimatewingchun]

1) In my haste to defend my Sifu against those who try to convince the world (and themselves) that he's lying about the TWC-Leung Bik-Yip Man-William Cheung connection, I've had to correct myself several times about names, dates, facts, etc...
So yes, I will slow down and check everything more carefully before posting it;and in time you will see that my faults have had to do with speed and style...but not substance.


2) I won't be goaded into revisiting the Cheung/Boztepe
event-that-proved-nothing again without first doing some serious reflection on what is to be gained by it (other than allowing others to try and deflect the subject at hand away from a path they can't deal with).


3) My position on the history/lineage issue needs to be put forward in an A to Z fashion so that it can be judged in toto and not picked apart piecemeal...the total argument is much more compelling when examined in this manner. So here it is:

A) The system I've been studying/teaching for the last almost 20 years with William Cheung is clearly a different system
than the one I studied previously for 8 years with Moy Yat...
The Central line theory, along with the sidestepping and other footwork that supports it; the Entry Technique to bridge the gap;
the fighting on the Blindside strategy; the use of the fighting on the horizontal centerline strategy AFTER gaining the superior position via the central line strategy...
these things did not exist back in the 1970's-early 80's within Moy Yat Ving Tsun....(For more details on TWC theory and why it virtually eliminates the possibility of your opponent outflanking you - see my post on the TO BE OR NOT BE thread which starts with the words: "Firstly...I'm not worried about any social engagements...")
These things did not exist within what I saw and experienced when Victor Kan visited Moy Yat's school; the same for Mak Po (a student of Yip Man who first introduced Moy Yat to Yip Man); nor did they exist within the video I have that was done by Wong Shun Leung (put out, if memory serves sometime around 1980)...with the single EXCEPTION of WSL turning his vertical middle-of-the-body centerline several times to face the point of contact while blocking some hook punches ...a central line TWC concept...though WSL did not use the TWC footwork that usually supports such a move.
Nor does it exist on the Leung Ting video I have;
nor does it show up in the countless magazine articles containing photos I still have about wing chun since 1975, other than William Cheung's. All of this is very suggestive - ie.- William Cheung's TWC is substantially different than the rest of any Yip Man lineage wing chun I have ever seen over the last 28 (and I've seen quite a bit)- the minor exception being the aforementioned Wong Shun Leung video.
So after all these years I know that TWC is real; it's not an illusion; it does exist; it's too complicated to have been invented by William Cheung, and it's very different.


B) Yip Chun's account in the book entitled WING CHUN
MARTIAL ARTS (on page 100) includes the following:
..."Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems to be untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea..."

How much more of a clue do you want to back up William Cheung's claim that Chan Wah Shun didn't get everything from Leung Jan? (ie.- the centraline theory and corresponding footwork). Yip Chun couldn't possibly mean the horizontal and vertical centerlines...two of the most simple and basic of concepts.


C) Yip Chun goes on to say..."As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it...when he studied Wing Chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult..."

INCREDIBLY SUGGESTIVE! Yip Chun again supports William Cheung's claim that Yip Man learned the REAL (knowledge of) Wing Chun (with better understanding) from Leung Bik.


D) I've yet to hear anyone say that Yip Chun is lying about this...also very suggestive.


E) The Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story that the Leung Bik-Yip Man connection was fabricated in order to bring Yip Man more publicity is clearly ITSELF a fabrication, since Yip Man already had a crowded school with nothing to be gained by having his name associated with someone (Leung Bik) who no one even knew of... evidence of a post- 1982 attempt to discredit William Cheung's claims with a lie.


F) The existence of Garrett Gee and Hung Fa Yi...
which is a remarkably similar system to TWC (and I say this based upon the Garrett Gee flier and two different magazine articles (with photos) I have and conversations with my friend Sifu Miguel Hernandez (a student of Moy Yat)...who attended a Garrett Gee seminar....(many others have said the same thing)...

This suggests that TWC concepts, strategies, principles and technigues are not sui-generis to William Cheung ( ie.-he didn't make it up...unless someone can prove that he did (hardly possible given it's complexity)...and then taught it to Garrett Gee;
or the reverse - Gee invented it and taught it to Cheung...

But there is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support this.


G) Neither has any proofs (claims) surfaced that William Cheung learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man...
Where is this mystery man (that some have suggested) or his decendents over the last 21 years?


Each fact (A to G) is suggestive...Together they have a CUMULATIVE FORCE that is very powerful.

Conclusions: Leung Bik (TWC)- Yip Man - William Cheung.
With the strong possibility that there was somewhere along the line a TWC/HFY connection.

This is what I believe. This is the logic I've employed in reaching my conclusions. At this point I am content that neither myself, nor William Cheung, nor anyone else within the World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association has to prove anything more. If you don't believe the story - it's up to you to disprove it. LOL

[reneritchie]

Hi Victor,

1) Excellent, a well appreciated approach.

2) Very wise. It does nothing but harm all of WCK

3) We'll go point by point.

A) Your personal experiences are your own, no one can argue them. However, they are your own, and so constrained by you. Just because you didn't see something, doesn't mean it wasn't there. Also, just because you later saw something you hadn't seen before, doesn't mean it was missing, it could also have been added. Therefore, this element I feel does show that William Cheung taught you (and others) different than what was available to you (and others) in your place and time (NYC in the 80s). In my own personal experience, when I first saw TWC, I didn't think it was outlandish or strange or un-WCKish, it just looked to have a different preference and emphasis, and to different methodology so as to use that engine.

The root concepts are nothing unique, however. Pien San and Cheung Bo both emphasized flanking (talking the blind side) and attacking the center of gravity (the horizontal center line) from there. Likewise, there are concepts to deal with extensions of the centerline. What's strange, however, is that while TWC seems to share these concepts, they're thusfar exclusively referred to in English (side neutral, central vs. center, blind side). That in itself could add to people not seeing a connection.

B) Many people have written about Leung Bik. Leung Ting has it in his book as well.

C) See B.

D) "Lying" is something you keep mentioning because, IMHO, you're not taking Chinese culture into account. Are you familiar with "fishing stories"? This has a much more expansive nature in China. They're not considered "lies" in the Western sense, but are part of the culture of mythology, folk lore, ancestral worship, etc. that has over 5000 years behind it. Again, you need to understand the culture, not label the example. Second, are you familiar with "filial duty?" It would be impolite to explain Yip Chun's reasoning as it would be impolite for him to offer any other account.

E) How do you know when the story was created? How do you know if it was needed or not? Hung Ga, Choy Lai Fut, all these other competitors had rich histories and prominent, known ancestors. WCK was almost secret until that time. If you understand the culture, and the "fishing story", you won't wonder what value linking in the Wing Chun legend and solidifying in an absolute heir to Leung Jan hook would add. You do raise a good point, however, that the stories about Leung Bik being a story could involve politics all their own.

F) The HFY folks don't seem to think there is any connection at all between the two :P. Joking aside, this is another good point, but until Cheung sifu or Gee sifu clarify what if any connection, recent or ancestral, exists between them, it remains only potentially helpful.

G) Very true, however, there is also no proof he learned it from Yip Man. That's both the brilliance and flaw to stories of secret training. However, on the same point, where are Leung Bik or Leung Chun's children and heirs to verify the story? Chan Wah-Shun's family is still around, Ng Jung-So's, Yip Man's, etc.

Conclusion: No honest, unbiased person can make any solid determination. Everything splits too evenly down the middle. Any conclusion reached, then, will be personal choise, based on personal preference, and a belief. And that's fine, but please don't throw around words like "proof" and "logic" where it is not possible.

[Ultimatewingchun]

RENE:

The logic is right there, staring you in the face...You "refuse" to see it due to your own political preferences and inclinations.

[reneritchie]

Victor,

Perhaps, like others, you're confused by Canadian English. Let me rephrase:

What you state is personal opinion, not fact. What others state is also personal opinion. There is no logic in most of the arguments. I thusfar have not been convinced either way.

And I have no political agenda. Doesn't make a flying flip of a difference to me one way or another, other than historical interest, and in that sense is about as interesting to me as whether the Tse brothers or Lai Wing taught Lao Daat-Sang. (Though, undoubtedly, it has more widespread repercussions).

On the other hand, *you* have a vested personal and political interest in propagating the story, as it is central to the way TWC has been marketed over the last 20 years. And that's fine. You're a good, loyal, trusting students, and your sifu must be very proud.

(As to logic, dude, please. Spock had one eyebrow raised through your whole post, maybe two!)

I respect your *opinion* and your *personal belief* none the less.

[fa_jing]

How's this for logic: According to Chueng's story, Chan Wah Sun was looked down upon by Leung Jan for his position as a money changer. Yet, it was Chan Wah Sun who represented Leung Jan's school in challenge matches. Wierd huh?

How's this for logic: Chan Wah Sun was indeed uneducated, and couldn't grasp the finer points of Wing Chun theory. Yet, students of Yip Man such as Tui Shung Tin, Leung Shun, Ho Kim Man, William Chueng etc. teach systems that are quite refined in theory. Shedding doubt upon the claim that all these (except Chueng) were taught a system based on lack of theory.

[fa_jing]

how's this for logic: The toes-pointed in stance is claimed by Chueng to be a detrimental modification, purposely making the stance worse. Yet, it fits right in with Wing Chun's training needs, providing a stretch to the hips and improving the structure of the fighting stance. Furthermore, it helps in the delivery of unpivoted side kicks, which have certain specific usages.

[fa_jing]

Sorry to beat the horse (live or dead,) but I went and looked up your post in the other thread. What you say is either incomplete or not true. In Hong Kong Yip Man style, it is not as you say that there is no flanking, to the contrary, the triangle step is very usefull in flanking the opponent and changing the angle of attack. Additionally, the footwork of the wooden man displays other methods.

PS I studied TWC for a brief time, and it is a good system. I just don't really think it's better than the others. More like there's pieces of the puzzle, some branches have some, some branches have others.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey guys,


Those were excellent views/posts!


Victor,


I think the point your missing is this!

Your TWC may be something with different emphacis and other elements from what you have been exposed to but the truth is it may not come from Leung Bik no matter how much you want to believe it.

Like I have said a few times now! For that to be true then Wong Wah Bo would have had to teach his two pupils differently! But, fortunately we can check the lineages and they are ultra similar so!!! Do you feel Leung Jan would have been taught 2 different WC systems (one correct and one wrong) and Leung Jan's classmate would have only been shown the wrong way?


Regards,

[KingMonkey]

I won't be goaded into revisiting the Cheung/Boztepe
event-that-proved-nothing
Ha! no but you still made sure that your opinion of the encounter was reiterated.

A note on proof. It is a widely misunderstand concept. There is no such thing as proof. It exists only in our minds and is a label we attach to external evidence when we have reached a conclusion based on that. The cheung/boztepe incident proved something to some, something different to others and nothing at all to many I'm sure.
However you can make a judgement on how objectively people evaluate the evidence before them based on many factors. I was able to evaluate the evidence offered by the cheung/boztepe incident from a neutral standpoint and it and the preceding and subsequent behaviour of the individuals involved certainly proved something to me.

[fa_jing]

To wit: Things I found in TWC but not in the other Yip Man Style:

Fully pivoting while delivering front kick
More detailed circular footwork

Things I found in the standard Yip man style, not in TWC:

Exchange Step
Triangle step

We were not taught to drag our feet during the forward stepping, but different branches may vary.

Of course there are more differences, but not to where they are completely missing from one or the other system.

[reneritchie]

fa_jing,

While I believe the term "liar" shows a lack of understanding with regards to Chinese martial "fishing stories", there is a lot in the TWC story which has proven to be factually challenged, to say the least.

Your example of "toe-in" is one of those. Several other arts beyond WCK use toe-in and variations of it as part of their footwork. These include Northern and Southern arts, with no connection to Leung Jan (obviously). Some, like Bagua and its Bajibu, are even *famous* for their footwork. Likewise you can see this footwork in Fujian derived systems, even in transition.

Another example is the old claim that Leung Jan had *no* other non-family students besides Chan Wah-Shun, when its well known in China he taught several others, mostly the other wealthy shop owners in his social circle, including Lo (Chu Yuk) Kwai, Ngao (Dai Shan) Shu, etc.

Yet another is the old claim that Yip Man had *no* students in Foshan, when its well known in China he taught a half-dozen students including Kwok Fu, Lun Gai, etc.

Errors are bound to crop up, especially when trying to relay oral transmissions from previous times and different places. And due to that fact, IMHO, its impossible for anyone to base objective, legitimate, mature, professional historical discussion solely on one person's unsubstatiated childhood memories of late night chats.

[reneritchie]

BTW- Am I the only one who thinks there should be some cool retro 80s music on this thread, you know, to go with their issues...

[sel]

master leung seung began training with yip man in 1950. (age 32)
master lok yiu began training with yip man in 1950. (age 28)
master tsui seung tin began training with yip man in 1951 (age 19)
master wong shun leung began training with yip man in 1952 (age 17)
master william cheung claims he began training with yip man in 1951 (age 10). he further claims that he was a live in student of yip man from 1954 to 1958 (age 13 to 17) in 1959 age 18 he left hong kong for australia.

here are my logical questions. can somebody give me some logical answers?

i am wondering why a master would choose to teach a child/teenager in secret, behind the backs of leung seung, lok yiu, tsui seung tin and wong shun leung.

i am wondering if a child/teen of age 10 to 17 (particularly one who had dropped out of school)would have the intellectual capability to understand and retain the full secret system of yip man's "real wing chun" (including the intricate nuances of wing chun movements and the profound theory of wing chun) taught to him and no one else.

i am also wondering how william cheung gained entrance to an australian university when he dropped out of school at age 14

[reneritchie]

master wong shun leung began training with yip man in 1952 (age 17) master william cheung claims he began training with yip man in 1951 (age 10).

It's my understanding William Cheung began training after Wong Shun-Leung, making the 1951 date possibly either a typo, or a miscalculation.

BTW - If we continue discussing this, do we have to grow mullets and watch old A-Team and Knight Rider reruns???

[old jong]

At a Wing Chun bowlling party in the 80's (http://www.mulletsgalore.com/motw/!pix/16.jpg) ;)

[sel]

lol charlies angels too!! (just to throw some babes in there)

no it is not a typo. i was going to wonder about the date anomaly as well, but i thought i should limit my wondering. lol

just going to put on a duran duran vinyl now.

i could also wonder whether it's true that yip man didn't teach kids..... but then i'd probably have to get my adam ant outfit on too.

[hunt1]

One thing I dont understand. there is a school in NYC Chinatown that claims Leung Jans son Leung Chun as their source. This teacher has been teaching for a long time it seems and is not " secret". Its family tree coincides with the aussie school that claims Leung Chun through a different source. Could not someone go to this school and see if what they teach is more like TWC or regular old Yip Man wing chun. While this wont prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt it surely will give an clear indication. Unless Leing Jan only taught the good stuff to just one son>

[reneritchie]

Old Jong - Like, you looked so totally gnarly, dude!

[reneritchie]

Hunter,

The Australians had a web site up for a while and the pictures looked like Foshan WCK to me, not TWC (not 50/50). Glenn from that lineage posts here occasionally, I think, not sure he ever mentioned them being much like TWC.

[fa_jing]

http://hk.geocities.com/talkhandking/wong_slt.asf

I'll shut up after this one. But, I was told by my TWC instructor that there was an "extra" traditional form called Advanced Sil Lum Tao. One of the differences between this form and regular Sil Lum tao, was an extra section after the pak + palm strike section. I have read that Yip Man changed this section to add a Tan, Gon sao sequence to help Wong Shueng Lueng. I suppose that's not proveable. However, in the above link, you will find WSL performing both sections, the original one and the modified one. I think that Tui Shung Tin also performs it the original way. This is the same as the extra section taught to me as part of Advanced Sil lum tao. Which begs the question, how did the modification of the sequence low pak, tan, jut, jom, palm strike section to tan, gan, tan, palm strike end up in the secret "original" TWC forms?

PS if you have trouble viewing the above link, try right-clicking and selecting "save target as"

[fa_jing]

crap, I don't know if that link is working or not. But you all may remember the thread where the site was posted:

http://gongsau.isportsdot.com/

The clip I'm referring to is WSL's SLT.

[reneritchie]

On one website, they claimed Tan -> Jum -> Tan was Leung Bik's version, but after Wong Shun-Leung lost a fight, Yip Man showed him Chan Wah-Shun's version, which was Tan -> Gaun -> Tan. However, the Tan -> Jum -> Tan is the standard way the choreography occurs in other WCK branches, including Chan Wah-Shun in China.

Almost every teacher has their own "signature" within their sets. Once you know them, you can "trace" the set. Yip Man's HK "signatures" show up in some suprising places, not suprisingly.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

Perhaps something needs to be repeated on this thread that will serve as a very clear example of what I'm talking about:

In a recent post on the thread TO BE OR NOT TO BE you said the folllowing while addressing Joy...
"There is no "clean" evidence Yip Man told anyone about Leung Bik, while there is direct evidence he never mentioned Leung Bik to his earliest students, and many of the other early students as well. So, we're left only with hearsay..."

And later in the same paragraph you wrote..."there's no reason to disrespect Wang Kiu or William Cheung..."

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN BY PHONY BEHAVIOR.

By no "clean" evidence what you're really saying is that William Cheung's claim that Yip Man told him about Leung Bik is not
"clean"...meaning...not believable...meaning that you, Rene...are assuming that William Cheung is lying.

But when others say that there was never any mention of Leung Bik - they're telling the truth (according to Rene)...

NO REASON TO DISRESPECT WILLIAM CHEUNG?

Then don't disrespect him by calling him (no matter how subtly you phrase it)...a liar!

And don't think that when you hold William Cheung to one standard but everyone else to a different standard...that I...and others... won't call you on it.

You're a phony, Rene.

And your nose is growing.

[reneritchie]

Victor,

I answered that on the original thread you mistated the information on. Why do you feel the need to resort to petty personal attacks and name calling? Attacking me does nothing to prove your point or promote your argument.

Here's the reply from the other thread, in case you missed it:


Victor,

Please don't get your panties in a bunch. I wasn't thinking of Cheung sifu at all in that quote, but to the "interview" of Yip Man by Mok Poi-On where Yip Man supposedly recounts, first hand, the story of meeting Leung Bik. This would be the only direct example of Yip Man (and not one of his students) relaying the story. However, it is "unclean" in that Leung Ting's involvement in the interview, and the assertion that it was actually he, and not Yip Man, who fed most of the information to Mok, makes it "unclean" or "tainted", and thus it returns to the neutral state for me.

And please don't drag the conversation down with name calling or petty political personalism. I have no interest in trading insults with you. I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand the culture the story is coming from (which your repeated use of buzz words like "liar" shows you've yet to acknowledge).

If you really believe you have a logical and convincing argument to present, I'm very much interested. If not, I'll leave you to your beliefs.

Hendrik,

Your post on Chan Wah-Shun raises some very interesting points. Clearly, Leung Jan wasn't the only one teaching WCK in Foshan at the time, so why would he have to challenge Leung Bik or Leung Chun? Also, Leung Jan's pharmacy, which he reportedly inherited from his father, was not taken over by any of his sons, and was sold to another family. Chan Wah-Shun didn't take over the pharmacy, where Leung Jan taught, so again, what did he gain by challenging either of them? And even if he did, and beat them at WCK, wouldn't they have sold the pharmacy, and not Leung Jan? Could Leung Bik have moved away before Leung Jan sold the pharmacy, thus explaining why his children didn't take it over? And if they did, it couldn't have been because of Chan Wah-Shun challenging them, since Leung Jan was still alive and still teaching. Very confusing! Koo Lo is a very important point as well. It was Leung Jan's native town. He retired there. He taught his nephews, and others there. Perhaps their records could be helpful? But then, as Jim has said, Koo Lo records don't indicate Leung Jan's children having significant skill/knowledge in the art. Also confusing.

Jeremy, Hendrik,

Very interesting discussion on Buddhism. If you can keep it free from personal attacks, I think it will turn into a great thread of its own.


__________________
Rene Ritchie

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

Let me also add something else to my last post concerning your non-credibility:

Earlier on this thread you wrote..."And I have no political agenda. Doesn't make a flying flip of a difference to me one way or the other, other than historical interest...on the other hand, you (Victor) have a vested personal and political interest in propagating the story...."

Who the f##k do you think you're kidding...Rene!

Even the people who agree with you about TWC have got to be laughing in their boots right about now!

You're part of a wing chun sytem and lineage...OF COURSE YOU HAVE AN AGENDA...just like everybody else...Trouble is...

YOU'RE LYING ABOUT IT... while I'm not hiding the fact that I want to promote TWC...

but I'm promoting it - as on the first installment of this thread -with logical arguments...not by trying to fool people about where I'm coming from.

Again I'll say it...you're a phony.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

But of course you have no interest in trading personal insults with me....

Because you want to keep your (not-so-hidden-any-longer) agenda under wraps, and the way to do that is to stay away from anything other than the guise of...how did you phrase it earlier?...HISTORICAL INTEREST... yes, that was it.

If you can hide everything you say (warts and all) under historical interest... instead of being a human being like the rest of us with self interests at stake... people might not notice that Rene is promoting himself, his book, his kung fu lineage, etc...

But people have noticed...and you're now exposed.

[KPM]

---OK Victor. Rather than acknowledging or answering points made in the other thread you chose to start a new one. So be it.

So yes, I will slow down and check everything more carefully before posting it;and in time you will see that my faults have had to do with speed and style...but not substance.

---Good policy.

2) I won't be goaded into revisiting the Cheung/Boztepe
event-that-proved-nothing again without first doing some serious reflection on what is to be gained by it (other than allowing others to try and deflect the subject at hand away from a path they can't deal with).

---Another good policy. I also do not think that the Cheung/Boztepe incident proved anything.


3) My position on the history/lineage issue needs to be put forward in an A to Z fashion so that it can be judged in toto and not picked apart piecemeal...the total argument is much more compelling when examined in this manner. So here it is:

---It is no more compelling "in toto" than it was before. It still has problems, despite your claims to logic.

these things did not exist back in the 1970's-early 80's within Moy Yat Ving Tsun....(further similar sentiments snipped).

---Most of the things you mention are TWC's "claim to fame." But they are not what was used to define "modified" WCK in those original articles. Maybe you need to define for us exactly what you think "modified" WCK consists of. I still maintain that no one is practicing what those original articles defined as "modified" WCK.

So after all these years I know that TWC is real; it's not an illusion; it does exist; it's too complicated to have been invented by William Cheung, and it's very different.

---Too complicated to have been invented by William Cheung? Maybe you are not giving your Sifu enough credit for talent and ingenuity! :-) It may be an different interpretation of WCK concepts, but it is still WCK concepts. It is not VERY different, and it is not too big of a stretch to see how someone may have come up with this interpretation based on "standard" YMWCK theory.


B) Yip Chun's account in the book entitled WING CHUN
MARTIAL ARTS (on page 100) includes the following:
..."Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems to be untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea..."

How much more of a clue do you want to back up William Cheung's claim that Chan Wah Shun didn't get everything from Leung Jan? (ie.- the centraline theory and corresponding footwork). Yip Chun couldn't possibly mean the horizontal and vertical centerlines...two of the most simple and basic of concepts.

----These stories being repeated by Yip Chun and Yip Ching have been addressed by both Rene and I in the other thread. You didn't respond to our answers then. Do I need to outline it for you again?


C) Yip Chun goes on to say..."As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it...when he studied Wing Chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult..."

INCREDIBLY SUGGESTIVE! Yip Chun again supports William Cheung's claim that Yip Man learned the REAL (knowledge of) Wing Chun (with better understanding) from Leung Bik.

---Incredibly suggestive (!) only of someone unwilling to contradict old stories and someone seeing a way to help line their own ricebowl. The clear implication of these stories is that Yip Man taught this "real" knowledge to his sons. Does William Cheung support that idea?


D) I've yet to hear anyone say that Yip Chun is lying about this...also very suggestive.

---Of what?


E) The Lee Man Restaurant Workers Union story that the Leung Bik-Yip Man connection was fabricated in order to bring Yip Man more publicity is clearly ITSELF a fabrication, since Yip Man already had a crowded school with nothing to be gained by having his name associated with someone (Leung Bik) who no one even knew of... evidence of a post- 1982 attempt to discredit William Cheung's claims with a lie.

---I also addressed this on the other thread, which you chose to ignore. We don't know the timeline of this storie's invention. If it was when Yip Man first arrived in Hong Kong, then he likely didn't have a crowded kwoon right from the beginning. The story may very well have been used to increase Yip Man's fame and the size of his classes. And since it was Lee Man that convinced Yip Man to start teaching openly and it is also said that it was Lee Man that invented this story, then it seems likely to me that it was very early on and used as a "marketing" strategy.


F) The existence of Garrett Gee and Hung Fa Yi...
which is a remarkably similar system to TWC (and I say this based upon the Garrett Gee flier and two different magazine articles (with photos) I have and conversations with my friend Sifu Miguel Hernandez (a student of Moy Yat)...who attended a Garrett Gee seminar....(many others have said the same thing)...

This suggests that TWC concepts, strategies, principles and technigues are not sui-generis to William Cheung ( ie.-he didn't make it up...unless someone can prove that he did (hardly possible given it's complexity)...and then taught it to Garrett Gee;
or the reverse - Gee invented it and taught it to Cheung...

But there is not one shred of evidence anywhere to support this.

---There is also not one shred of evidence to support TWC existing prior to William Cheung or HFY existing prior to Garrett Gee. All other WCK lineages have a verifiable past, more than one person representing the lineage, people that were around that can "vouch" for them, etc. All except TWC and HFY. Seems strange to me. And HFY has elements that come from YMWCK that Yip Man himself created. Seems strange to me.


G) Neither has any proofs (claims) surfaced that William Cheung learned TWC from someone other than Yip Man...
Where is this mystery man (that some have suggested) or his decendents over the last 21 years?

---Exactly! Where are other people that knew about or learned TWC prior to Yip Man? Where are the other lineages of TWC descending from Wong Wah Bo's teachings? Where are the other people that learned TWC from Leung Jan or Leung Bik? Why, after 21 years, is there no shred of evidence for the existance of TWC prior to William Cheung?


Each fact (A to G) is suggestive...Together they have a CUMULATIVE FORCE that is very powerful.

---Only to someone with a vested interest in believing in them. Your logic is not full-proof, as I have pointed out above and as has been pointed out in the other thread. There are still problems with your story. Jim has pointed out an excellent point in the other thread. Wong Wah Bo did not teach only Leung Jan. Fok Bo Chuen was also his student. But what Fok Bo Chuen taught to Yuen Kay Shan is very similar to what Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo village and neither is similar to TWC. So the "modified" WCK would have had to originate with Wong, not Leung Jan. And why would Wong teach Leung Jan two versions of WCK, and why would he teach Fok Bo Cheun only the "modified" version? It just makes no sense. TWC's own stories say that it is designed to give the smaller fighter the advantage over the larger. You have made a big point in saying that Chan Wah Shun had not only learned the "inferior" and "modified" version of WCK, but also that he had a poor understanding of WCK concepts/theories. Yet your own stories say that Chan defeated Leung Jan's sons. That just doesn't make sense either.


This is what I believe. This is the logic I've employed in reaching my conclusions. At this point I am content that neither myself, nor William Cheung, nor anyone else within the World Wing Chun Kung Fu Association has to prove anything more. If you don't believe the story - it's up to you to disprove it. LOL

---Laugh all you want. The fact remains that there are problems with your logic and that what you have lined out above proves nothing. You can believe what you want, but if you want the rest of us to believe it as well, then you have some explaining to do. Stories don't suddenly become true by force of repetition. Even after 21 years.

Keith

[Ultimatewingchun]

Keith:

Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu, with it's central line concepts and footwork that does not appear in any other non-William Cheung
Yip Man lineage...

Is here to stay. It was true in the 80's, the 90's...it's true now... and will always be true.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your plans.

It is too complicated for William Cheung to have made it up...
again I'll repeat the words of Yip Chun...

..."Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems to be untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea..."

A huge clue that backs up William Cheung's claim that Chan Wah Shun didn't get the central line theory with its footwork...because Yip Chun couldn't possibly have meant the horizontal and vertical centerlines...these ideas are just TOO basic.



"As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it...when he studied Wing Chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult..."

Incredibly suggestive because Yip Chun supports William Cheung's claim that Yip Man learned the REAL (knowledge of) Wing Chun (with better understanding) from Leung Bik.

I'm beginning to suspect that you folks who talk about pidgeoned-toed stances and what-have-you have never really seen the footwork that I'm referring to in this thread...

It' goes way beyond the pidgeoned-toe or not-to-pidgeon toe
business....That stuff is just the very tip of the iceburg.

You need to look deeper into TWC footwork in order to be taken seriously.

[planetwc]

Victor,

What of the story that William learned another style of Wing Chun while hiding out on the mainland? Could that have been Hung Fa Yi or something similar?

The story of William being the ONLY one with "traditional" Wing Chun seems credible when you don't have the rest of the history behind Wing Chun in evidence. In other words, it works when you are back in the 70's and there is little in the way of knowledge that there are even other branches of Wing Chun.

Yet we now know where Leung Jan himself retired to. We know that he taught his system there as a series of points in Koo Lo. Why doesn't the Koo Lo system look like TWC?

We have a parallel line of Yuen Kay Shan Wing Chun and we see the similarities in form, concepts and movement. It doesn't look like TWC either.

There are a lot of others like this which don't have the similarity towards TWC--interestingly enough Hung Fa Yi does in it's choreography of forms.

Additionally, what was the form of logic behind choosing who to teach this secret version to? Leung Jan withheld it from his top student Chan Wah Shun to keep it in his own family (so in other words, he NEVER showed the real form to ANY other students than his two sons during the lifetime of his teaching, both before Chan Wah Shun and after?).

So, Leung Bik breaks this tradition and shows it to Yip Man?

Yip Man breaks this tradition and does not teach his own sons, or his most senior students in Hong Kong, but instead shows it to a teenager who is a non-family member who leaves his master's side and only at the beginning of his studies and departs for Austrailia?

If the tradition was to pass on this secret art from family member to family member then Leung Bik and Yip Man both violated that.

If the tradition was to pass on this secret art to the best student then Leung Jan violated this by not passing it on to Chan Wah Shun.

If the secret art was superior? Then why did Chan Wah Shun defeat Leung Bik?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

What Leung Ting says or doesn't say is no reason for you to return to the "neutral state"...since you don't believe Leung Ting.

William Cheung says that Yip Man told him about Leung Bik...but you (Rene) wrote ...

"There is no "clean" evidence Yip Man told anyone about Leung Bik..."

SO BECAUSE YOU DON'T BELIEVE LEUNG TING MEANS THAT WILLIAM CHEUNG'S CLAIMS ARE ALSO NOT "CLEAN"?

Again I have to say...Rene....you're just not credible.

[Ultimatewingchun]

The fact that TWC doesn't show up in Leung Jan's other students'
wing chun doesn't mean that he didn't teach TWC to Leung Bik...

How can you assume that? How do you know what Leung Jan's motivations were towards these other students....?


Very faulty... (because it assumes too much)... reasoning.

[tparkerkfo]

Victor,

Why did the inferior Chan Wah Shun beat the supperior Leung Bik?

Why did Yip Man not mention Leung Bik in his records, thought he mentioned Chan Wah Shun, Ng Chung So, and others?

Why would Leung Jan teach his sons the secret style, but Yip Man would not?

Tom

[anerlich]

Guess I'll wade in:

The main problem I have with Sigung Cheung's version of history is not mentioned in Victor's original post.

That is that Yip Man taught him alone the "secret" TWC system and told him in private that he had inherited the "Grandmastership", whatever that entails besides a hifalutin' title. Without telling anyone else so his (YM's) special regard for W Cheung could be verified. The combination of alleged unverifiable secret tuition and alleged events which back up claims by W Cheung which IMO an impartial observer would regard as grandiose cannot avoid arousing ire and scepticism. Unless indisputable proof that the events occurred appears (which will never happen so far down the track) such scepticism will continue, justifiably.

Still, I have two instructors who trained extensively with Sigung Cheung, one as far back as the late 1960's in Canberra. Their stories indicate that W Cheung's claims cannot necessarily be dismissed out of hand.

Sifu David Crook, who has been teaching KF in Canberra, AUS since 1969, trained with W Cheung while the latter lived in Canberra. Whoever cast doubt earlier on Cheung's academic qualifications knows sweet FA, he definitely attained a degree in AUS and also worked in the Public Service as well as teaching KF. If you're going to question YM's deep teaching to the teenage W Cheung, you need to do the same with Bruce Lee also.

Cheung's assertion that he did not teach TWC until after Yip Man's death in 1972 in accordance with a vow WC made to YM has some support from actual events: David Crook, who trained with him prior to 1972, was taught the pigeon-toed stance and the bent-wrist bon sao of "modified WC"; Rick Spain, one of his earliest Melbourne students (1974) who was with him for 23 years, was taught the parallel foot neutral stance and straight wrist bon sao of TWC.

David actually knocked Sigung Cheung out, at a time when Emin was probably just getting out of daipers. They were sparring, and David drew WC's sidekick while fighting with his arm intentionally left low. he caught the kick and swept it upwards, WC went A over T and banged his head on the floor.

Instead of making a career out of it as some would (and have), Dave was s****ing himself, expecting a severe beating when GM Cheung came to. Perhaps because there were other people around but also to his credit, W Cheung just smiled evilly and said "good technique". Dave never regarded this as anything but a freak stroke of luck, which might as easily have turned bad as good, and certainly not as any sort of victory or something to boast about.

This story may annoy some, but frankly I find the demigod status that some instructors expect and some students promote to be extremely disappointing and in desperate need of bubble-bursting.

fa-jing is correct about there being an "extra" TWC form, ASLT (there are in fact a couple versions of it, with more or less footwork). You may be right about everything else you said about it.

As for the HFY parallels, they are intriguing but there's even less proof of that than of the subject under discussion. Even the tow major protagonists (Cheung and Gee) say it is baseless. GM Cheung is hardly reticient in claiming credit for his accomplishments or his impressive relationships, and if there were an angle in this that he could use there is no doubt that he would do so. I couldn't see Benny Meng passing up the benefits to himself and the museum either.

LOL at Victor for saying he's going to present a reasoned coherent argument and then going ad hominem at Rene. Even if Rene did have an agenda, you descending to abuse and name calling does nothing for your cred. Stick to facts.

[anerlich]

I just cranked up some Gary Numan and Joy divsion MP3's myself. I didn't have a Brian Lewadny mullet (not enough hair), but I did used to wear skinny ties and red and yellow jeans.

A lot of this went on in the 70's too. How about some Led Zep, flares, and incense? I changed my .sig in homage!

[hunt1]

Anerlich- When WC made the change in the style of wing chun he taught how did he explain things to his students? Did he just walk in one day and say guess what Yip Mans dead now I'm gonna teach you the real stuff ! Did David learn TWC? Was the TWC taught to Rick Spain the same as WC taught in America in the 80S? WAs there ever a point where WC taught both versions of wing chun?

[anerlich]

hunter,

good questions but I don't really know the answers.

David and William had a falling out prior to the latter leaving Canberra in the early 70's. Not exactly unusual where the latter is concerned. I don't think it's right to go in to detail but suffice to say it was serious enough for David to consult a lawyer about it. They patched it up, but about 15 years later.

I think William only started teaching fulltime when he went to Melbourne (in Canberra he worked in the Public Service), with a different set of students. And probably, though I don't know for sure, he started teaching TWC around this time. As I said before, my current instructor, Rick Spain, was taught TWC from day one.

David treats the whole traditional/modified thing as a matter of supreme irrelevance, though he has told me that while he doesn't give the stories much credence or attention that William's footwork "was definitely different to everyone else's". He also has some interesting stories about the origin of certain programs marketed in the past by the WWCKFA.

Rick Spain has told me he believes the training in Melbourne in the 1970's is somewhat different to what has been taught in the US, but going into detail would be inappropriate for me. It's also fair for critics to say "well, he WOULD say that, wouldn't he?"

[reneritchie]

Victor,

I haven't mentioned my books except when *you* brought them up, and haven't promoted them or my lineage at all in these threads. I don't care to. You can name call all you want, you can make up any pretend stories about agendas or whatever, but none of that serves to make your argument any more compelling, any more believable, or anything even approaching logical.

If anything, I sympathize with you. You passionately believe something you cannot factually support or articulately argue, and your level of frustration must be high. Perhaps you need to step back, take a breath, and work out an alternate method for conversation. You do yourself, and your cause, no service with this manner of behavior.

For my part, I will not address that aspect again, but will stick with reasonable discussion of the facts (or lack thereof) at hand.

Have you had a chance to type out the Cantonese for Side Neutral Stance yet? Or how central and center line are differentiated in Cantonese? Do you have any idea why Leung Jan would have to sell his pharmacy to another family if his sons didn't leave until after he died?

Keith, Andrew, well said. If Cheung sifu did go from 1972 to 1974 with a completely different systematic approach, it lends credibility to him not just coming up with it during the interim. However, while it fits the idea of a "vow", it also means that Yip Man was no longer around to either confirm or refute the claim ("Yes, I did teach him that and it did come from him", or "what the heck, I never did anything like that and never met that guy!")

[fa_jing]

Teacher Parlatti brought up a good point, that the Chueng Style seems too in depth and consistent to have been "made up." However, the regular Yip Man style, is the same. It is way too in depth, precise, consistent, complete etc. to be a "dumbed-down" version of wing chun. Sure it could be a simplification of some things, even the most popular legend states that wing chun was created as a simplification and refinement of shaolin techniques, however it would be a calculated simplification and streamlining, in the interest of efficiency in teaching (or whatever other reason), not a modification to deliberately make it "worse." That's the biggest problem with the story we hear from William Chueng, the motivation for creating the "Chan Wah Sun" version is supposedly to put him at a disadvantage, and that simply is not logical.

Furthermore, there are a lot of different versions of Wing Chun out there, and again, the reason for this cannot be to make a less proficient fighter. The skills of the foremost practicioners of each lineage prove that this is not the case.

What are the real reasons for differences? Well my teacher's theory is that it is a domino effect, one student remembers it slightly differently from the other, and these differences add up with each successive generation. Furthermore, each teacher will refine the system slightly according to their understanding and vision for the development of the art. Some may even be influenced by other styles. Ultimately though, the reasons for these differences aren't so important, what is important is how well the art works for you, the individual practioner.

Now we all have heard that Yip Man taught different things to different people as he progressed in age, and according to his location (Mainland China vs. Hongkong). For instance, although my teacher studied the popular Yip Man style, his bon saos and tan saos are performed with a straight wrist, which Anerlich understood to be particular to the W. Chueng variation. Again, we are not taught to drag the feet. And we do have a "square stance" with toes pointed forward, which we use for some training exercises.

Who knows what Yip Man told W. Chueng, anyway? He may be simply repeating aspects of what he heard from his teacher. And if Chueng is correct, then it was Yip Man who was a liar, presenting a "modified" version of Wing Chun to the world as the real deal....

[rochester]

I think Rene's in the No Spin Zone!

[anerlich]

For instance, although my teacher studied the popular Yip Man style, his bon saos and tan saos are performed with a straight wrist, which Anerlich understood to be particular to the W. Chueng variation. Again, we are not taught to drag the feet. And we do have a "square stance" with toes pointed forward, which we use for some training exercises.

Hold your horses, bub. I never said, or "understood", the stance or bon sao configuration, or stepping, or anything else to be unique to TWC. HFY, and, so it appears, your Sifu, and doubtless other lineages as well, have similar signatures.

W Cheung claims that TWC uses these signatures, and others, where "modified" WC uses pigeon toed stances, bent wrist bon sao, etc. Neither he nor I said that no other variant of WC might not use them as well. I have the infamous "Comparison of Traditional and Modified Wing Chun" article by W Cheung handy if you feel it necessary to continue this aspect of the discussion.

Problems I have with the version of history under debate is the signature attributes of TWC aren't in fact all that unique. And that it blithely ignores at least some of the many non-YM lineages.

I don't care if you wanna argue with me or call me names. But MISQUOTE me - WATCH OUT!

[sel]

Originally posted by anerlich
Guess I'll wade in:
Sifu David Crook, who has been teaching KF in Canberra, AUS since 1969, trained with W Cheung while the latter lived in Canberra. Whoever cast doubt earlier on Cheung's academic qualifications knows sweet FA, he definitely attained a degree in AUS and also worked in the Public Service as well as teaching KF. If you're going to question YM's deep teaching to the teenage W Cheung, you need to do the same with Bruce Lee also.


no doubt william cheung went to university, none at all. i was only wondering how he gained entrance into an australian university when he dropped out of school at age 14 to live with yip man and learn wing chun. age 14 standard of high school education would not get you entry into a university.

YM's deep teaching to Bruce Lee? Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it.

wong shun leung started training with yip man in 1952.
william cheung says he started training with yip man in 1951.
how can that be ????

[planetwc]

Because William Cheung started AFTER Wong Shun Leung and Wong started in 1953.

William started in 1954 along with Lo Man Kam, Victor Kan, Lee Kam Sing and others who can validate this. He started learning in Restaurant workers union HQ AFTER Leung Sheung won re-election, which was in 1954.

Both Wong Shun Leung and William Cheung were influential in teaching Bruce Lee along with of course, Yip Man.

[sel]

on william cheung's website it says he began training in 1951 at the age of 10. it's there for all to see.
somewhere else i read that he quit school to become a live in student of yip man in 1954. i will try to find it again. that's why i was wondering how he managed to get into uni without a full high school education.

so, is the information on william cheung's website untrue?

[Stevo]

i]Originally posted by sel [/i]


no doubt william cheung went to university, none at all. i was only wondering how he gained entrance into an australian university when he dropped out of school at age 14 to live with yip man and learn wing chun. age 14 standard of high school education would not get you entry into a university.

I don't know anything about W. Cheung's education, but I know that someone who leaves high school early in Australia can do bridging courses that will lead them into a University degree.

YM's deep teaching to Bruce Lee? Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it.

Perhaps W. Cheung's memory is faulty!! Wong Shun Leung definitely also taught Bruce Lee.

[KPM]

---Hey Victor. Nice how you avoid answering questions put to you.

Traditional Wing Chun Kung Fu, with it's central line concepts and footwork that does not appear in any other non-William Cheung
Yip Man lineage...

---Maybe so. Maybe no. But I'll say again, I think you need to define for us exactly what "modified" WCK looks like.

Is here to stay. It was true in the 80's, the 90's...it's true now... and will always be true.

---No doubt TWC is here to stay. No one has questioned that. As I said before, I think it is a valid and effective method. It is just the "history" behind it that is in question.

Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your plans.

---Plans? I don't have any plans. I will say again what I said before. Those original articles years ago were an insult to everyone in the YMWCK family and to continue to repeat the same story some 20 yrs later is still an insult. What those articles defined as "modified" WCK in their attempt to show how superior TWC is just does not appear in reality. The info was inaccurate then, and it is still inaccurate. That is the only reason I have responded in this whole discussion.

It is too complicated for William Cheung to have made it up...
again I'll repeat the words of Yip Chun...

..."Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems to be untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea..."

---If Yip Man was only a pre-teen when he started learning WCK, then this is not too hard to believe. Can you teach all the theories and concepts of WCK thoroughly to someone that is eleven or twelve years old?

A huge clue that backs up William Cheung's claim that Chan Wah Shun didn't get the central line theory with its footwork...because Yip Chun couldn't possibly have meant the horizontal and vertical centerlines...these ideas are just TOO basic.

---But again....could it be that Yip Man's lack of knowledge was not due to a lack of teaching on Chan Wah Shun's part, but rather a lack of comprehension on Yip Man's part? After all, he was just a kid. Here I am assuming that the Leung Bik story is true for the sake of discussion. My point is only that the logical conclusion is not necessarily that Chan Wah Shun didn't know what he was doing. After all, he was quite famous for his WCK abilities and won many challenge matches. His understanding of WCK couldn't have been that bad. :-)



"As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Shun did not know much about it...when he studied Wing Chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienced and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult..."

Incredibly suggestive because Yip Chun supports William Cheung's claim that Yip Man learned the REAL (knowledge of) Wing Chun (with better understanding) from Leung Bik.

---And I'll ask you once again......the implication of Yip Chun retelling this story is that Yip Man also passed on this REAL knowledge of WCK to him. Does William Cheung support this idea? Nothing in Yip Chun's story mentions Yip Man learning an entirely different version of WCK.

I'm beginning to suspect that you folks who talk about pidgeoned-toed stances and what-have-you have never really seen the footwork that I'm referring to in this thread...

---And I'm beginning to think you have been completely ignoring any points made that contradict and bring into question the old TWC rhetoric. I'm also beginning to think that this whole discussion has been rather pointless because of this.


You need to look deeper into TWC footwork in order to be taken seriously

---And you need to listen to what other people have to say and come up with some better evidence to support your claims if you want to be taken seriously.

Keith

[Ultimatewingchun]

Anerlich:


I don't recall William Cheung ever saying that Yip Man said to him ...

"Son....you're going to be the new Grandmaster after I die"...I think William Cheung claimed that title as his right because of the fact that Yip Man did not teach TWC to anyone else. I agree with him.

As regards this guy who managed to counter William Cheung's sidekick...never heard about that...even if true...didn't Dan Lee once hit Bruce lee with a very heavy boxing punch...what did it prove about Bruce Lee...anything of significance?

These people are not gods...their great...but not gods.


Rene: later on in the day I will post again about all the points you raised in your first post on this thread...now that I think the point is made that you're just as human as the rest of us around here.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello all,



This conversation is heading down the nonsense road.

I want to just ask one question and bring up this point that seems to be avoided (even tho others have spotted it)!


Victor,


Answer this but take a deap breath before you do!


Do you really believe that Wong Wah Bo would have taught Leung Jan any differently that he taught Fok Bo Chuen? If so, why?


Now, for the last time! The information you continue to screem about on this thread is nothing more than stories with no back up logic or evidence! You are just repeating stories! The one question above is more evidence than you have discussed which makes your view on the lesser likely side IMO.


Again: If Wong Wah Bo taught both Leung Jan and Fok Bo Chuen and both lineages are almost identical then that is all the evidence anyone needs to show the Leung Bik (secret art) is not logical. Plus! Keep in mind that Leung Bak Chung was his nephew and he was one of the Koo Lo pupils who's WC is not like TWC. Oh yeah, keep in mind that Yik Kam's WC is also very very similar to Leung Jan's teaching in Koo Lo. So, just this shows what is more likely since if that was also what you call modified it would mean whomever taught Yik Kam would have shown him the wrong way also?


I know you are a devoted TWC practitioner, and teacher, but you need to keep an open mind and maybe, just maybe, TWC is something that came from somebody besides Leung Jan.


Regards,

[reneritchie]

fa_jing,


However, the regular Yip Man style, is the same.

Now consider this, not only does the TWC story claim the "modified" system was made up, it claims it was made up in the matter of mere moments, when Leung Jan saw Chan Wah-Shun spying on them. In that instant, he came up with a "modified" version and began showing it to his sons, and they didn't flinch, and managed to hide every ounce of previous training, every combat reflex they'd develop, and never again show any of the "traditional" system while Chan Wah-Shun was around. And Chan never noticed that the WCK they were practicing before looked different than what they practiced after that moment.

David,


William started in 1954 along with Lo Man Kam, Victor Kan, Lee Kam Sing and others who can validate this. He started learning in Restaurant workers union HQ AFTER Leung Sheung won re-election, which was in 1954.

I believe Lo Man-Kam was there off and on from an earlier date. He was in the school, and knew some WCK already, when Wong Shun-Leung showed up, and sparred with Wong before Yip Bo-Ching and ultimately, Yip Man.

Victor,

Of course I'm human, last I checked, most of us were. Even those who told cool Kung Fu stories in the 1980s.

[fa_jing]

Anerlich: I will continue to misquote you, and everybody else. :D (J/K), this is the internet, although a bit of a serious thread. I could have wrote "Seems to imply" or "suggests" or something but whatever, the keys flew. I didn't really think that you were stating that such and such was definitely unique to the W. Chueng lineage, so I misquoted my own brain, too. Anyway it's all for the best, as you provided a nice clarification.

Cheers

[reneritchie]

Jim,

To play devil's advocate (and perhaps show a better way to make (a variation of) the TWC argument) if Fok Bo-Chuen received the same system from Wong Wah-Bo that Chan Wah-Shun received from Leung Jan, if we believe that Leung Jan did indeed pass down 3 different variations of WCK (Foshan, Gulao, and what's referred to as TWC), then it would mean Wong Wah-Bo would have had to have taught Leung Jan 2 different versions (Foshan and "TWC" - as Gulao he develped on his own later).

We already believe Wong Wah-Bo knew both Weng Chun Kuen and Wing Chun Kuen, so perhaps he knew something else as well? This would also make much more sense than Leung Jan just "making up" a whole other system to teach to Chan Wah-Shun within a matter of seconds.

To be complete, however, perhaps Fok Bo-Chuen learned the same "TWC" as Leung Jan from Wong Wah-Bo and then came up with Foshan WCK, which he shared with his sihingdai Leung Jan, and Leung subsequently taught to Chan Wah-Shun and, in different organization, in Gulao.

While both the above have to be considered "unlikely", I don't think we can discount them as "impossible" ;)

[hunt1]

Renee I think there rae other possibilities without getting to far fetched. Leung Jan was also taught by Leung Yee Tai according to the story so it is possible each teacher taught him a different version where as Fok was only taught by Wong.
On a more historical level it is clear that several wing chun versions all emerged at about the same time. Also other close body styles emerged from the Foshan area at around the same time. Keeping in mind the turmoil that was Southern China from 1850 onward it is not surprising that myth and fact have become intertwined and myth has become reality for some. It is interesting to note that the tale of 4 monks and a nun getting together to build the perfect sytle could be the story book version of 5 or 6 martial masters on the Red Boats getting together and building a system or systems based on combined knowledge. As a foot note Hop Gar (lions roar) made its way to Foshan around the time of the appearance of WC,Southren Mantis etc. One of the creators of Lions Roar is said to have been a monk named....... Ng Mui. Monk not a nun but what better way to protect the founder of you style, Wing Chun than to tell the powers that be to look for a woman instead of a man.

[reneritchie]

Hunter,

Aha, Hop Ga comes from Lion's Roar, and Lion's Roar is Tibetain, so now the Tibetain WCK folks have a leg to stand on! LOL!

[Phil Redmond]

Stevo wrote;
"YM's deep teaching to Bruce Lee? Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it."

I have the Australian Current affairs segment on tape. Wm. Cheung says that he was Bruce's senior and trained him to fight, as is evident by their correspondence. He never said he taught Bruce Lee everything himself. Thank God for modern technology.
Also, I have never heard that Leung Jan made up a system on the spot. Where the heck did that come from?....LOL

Rene,
Baat Jih Mah - side neutral stance
Yahp Jong - entry tech.
Seuihjik Mah - T stance
I "think" these are correct.
I have a tape of a private lesson with Cheung Sifu and Keith Mazza with the Chinese terms on it. I'll look for it for the other terms.

Phil

[reneritchie]

Phil,

You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar! Thanks much!

[Phil Redmond]

For the last 20 years in my involvement with TWC the question has come up whether the students in OZ learned something different or better the their US brothers. I have posed that question to many of my bro's who have gone to Australia to train either full or part time. I have been in constant contact with Dana Wong who moved from Boston to live and teach at our main kwoon. In fact, I was just with Sifu Joe Sayah who is from Melbourne and now lives in LA. last month and asked him the same question. The consensus is NO. People are taught according to their ability. There are some good and not so good on both sides of the pond. So being from one side or the other gives no one a monopoly on understanding. Well, Lewandy form Canada is an exception because he learned the entire system in 10...count 'em....10 months. 8)
Phil

[hunt1]

You got it Rene ! Something for everyone in creations myths.:D

One thing though if you have ever seen good Hop Gar,Lions Roar, Lama, Tibeten, white crane etc etc etc Wing Chun could certainly be a system designed to beat it. Lions Roar did produce some good fighters that can be documented in the 1850s in the Fatshan area. Just a fun thought.:)

[anerlich]

No sweat, thanks for the reply.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jim Roselando:


I don't know why Wong Wah Bo may or may not have taught Leung Jan differently than others...and I don't care!

And do you know why I don't care?...Which is the same reason why I've ignored you about this until now...

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to really know what happened back then. I see what you're getting at, but who knows why some things may have been kept secret and other things not? Who knows why some people may have been favored over others?

Do you know? Does anybody living in the present know?

Sometimes...(not always, but sometimes)... the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

And in the present, there is this TWC system that had to come from somewhere...William Cheung says it came from Leung Bik...and Yip Chun makes some very revealing remarks in that interview that seems to give some (and in my opinion, more than some)...but let's just say...some...credence to William Cheung's claims.

I'll have more to say later...Gotta go now.

[reneritchie]

Hunter,

One thing that's always amusing is the common assumption Guangdong didn't have any martial arts and everything there now is a "pure" import from Henan, Fujian, Tibet, etc. LOL!

Most of the arts that did come from other places, like Lion's Roar, or Fujian "Shaolin" were mixed with the local arts, producing unique, distinct systems like Hop Ga, Hung Ga Kuen, etc.

[sel]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Stevo wrote;
"YM's deep teaching to Bruce Lee? Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it."


that wasn't stevo, that was me. i do most humbly apologise for remembering incorrectly.

maybe you can answer my question about when gm cheung started training and whether he left school at 14 to go and live in with yip man?

[anerlich]

sel:


somewhere else i read that he quit school to become a live in student of yip man in 1954. i will try to find it again.

Don't bother, I have William Cheung's "My life with Wing Chun" right here next to me. In it he states he continued his schooling through to 1958, even after he moved to the New Territories.

Exactly what relevance the circumstances of W Cheung's university entrance has to this discussion escapes me. If you're trying to imply that the truth is being stretched in WC's accounts, that particular drop in the ocean seems rather unnecessary.

It is true that Bruce Lee only learned part of the system. However, he remains the highest profile YM student, had obvious fighting ability, and nearly every WC org in existence uses his WC training as a point of advertising when it suits them. Indeed, the significant portion of W Cheung's book is about his relationship with Bruce Lee. There is about five times as much on him and Bruce Lee is there is with him and Yip Man. Ypi Man certainly didn't seem to mind being associated with Bruce as a high profile student when the latter returned, famous, to HK.


Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it.

A movie? Well, jeez, then it MUST be true. Many Bruce Lee biographies have him being taught by WSL as well as Cheung.

In the book, Cheung states that when he started with YM in 1951 WSL was already training there. It is up to you to decide who is telling the truth.

Victor:
------------------------------------------
" don't recall William Cheung ever saying that Yip Man said to him ...

"Son....you're going to be the new Grandmaster after I die"...I think William Cheung claimed that title as his right because of the fact that Yip Man did not teach TWC to anyone else. I agree with him."
------------------------------------------

In the book:

"... after some time, Yip Man decided that the inheritor of the [TWC] would be William Cheung."

"By the power of the oath he had sworn to uphold, Yip Man's knowledge of [TWC] was now the knowledge of the new Grandmaster, William Cheung."

On whose authority?

If you're making the point that W Cheung is a self-appointed "Grandmaster", whatever that means, then we are in full agreement!

A rough chronology from the book (it's pretty hazy on that):

1940 approx (he doesn't actually say): born.

1949: meets Bruce Lee.

1951: starts training with Yip Man (Wong already there).

1954: completes learning the whole Modified WC system.

1955-58: Move in with Yip Man, learn the entire TWC system. Move to New Territories to avoid heat from gangs in HK.

Sometime between 1958 and 1972: Move to Australia. Gain Engineering degree. work for the Public Service in Canberra.

1972: Leave Public Service, open Dragon Inn Restaurant in Canberra. Yip Man dies.

1973: trip around Australia. Stop in Melbourne. Asked by Chinese community in Melbourne to set up "proper" Kung-Fu school. Starts teaching TWC.


As regards this guy who managed to counter William Cheung's sidekick...never heard about that...even if true...didn't Dan Lee once hit Bruce lee with a very heavy boxing punch...what did it prove about Bruce Lee...anything of significance?

"Even if true" ... its as provable as all of the other matters being discussed here. Dave Crook could possibly find witnesses in the unlikely event he thought it was worth talking about, unlike WC and yourself regarding the stories under discussion.

The points I'd draw from this are: there are things about these subjects that you, me and everyone else don't know, also that it's laughable that someone who made Cheung slip over on a polished floor has made a career out of it. I agree that neither event proves anything about anybody's fighting prowess. Rickson probably has to tap occasionally in training as well, but those who make him do it keep it in the academy rather than creating reputations and starting massive internet flame wars about it.


I think the point is made that you're just as human as the rest of us around here.

And, like you, carrying no special imprimatur of authority or knowledge on the subject, but having as much right to express an opinion.


This conversation is heading down the nonsense road.

Yeah, but it's fun.

[sel]

thanks anerlich, that's what i wanted to know. wong shun leung was not already there though in 1951. he started training in 1952 when he was 17.

now where is that supertramp album?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Anerlich;

Your remark about the polished floor is most welcome....Yes, I've reflected on it, and decided that something I've never bothered to mention on this forum but that you've just brought up is relevant to the overall discussion...since it would seem that everytime that William Cheung sneezes past a certain volume point someone is going to jump up and say that he's losin' it...

The floor in Germany during the Boztepe incident was a polished, somewhat slippery wooden floor....And careers are made!

Also...I'm not doubting your story when I say..."even if true"....

The bigger picture is that on any given day the better man can still lose...or...get hurt.

Furthermore, I believe that it WAS self-appointed on William Cheung's part...but I also believe it was justified.

Which relates somewhat to my next point about Chan Wah Shun vs. Leung Bik - not necessarily in response to Anerlich - others keep bringing this up:

It's about... the WILL...and the desires that stand behind and fuel the will; and the powers of one-pointed concentration that a strong will can provide; and the WILLingness to do whatever it takes to win....Let's just sum all of this up for the sake of argument under the term.....THE WILL...

I believe that this is the single most important ingredient in determining who will win a fight; obviously not the only ingredient
but the most important one...ie.- the will could be there, but the body is shattered - you lose...or, the will is there - your body is racked with pain...but you still prevail...whereas, someone else without a will as strong as yours would have allowed the pain to defeat him.

What's the point? Who can say that 5' tall man with a better system...HAS... to beat the 6' tall man with a lesser system?

Perhaps the bigger man's will was stronger...He might win on that day.

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

Rene: In your first post on this thread (during A) you said that..."Pien San and Chung Bo both emphasized flanking (taking the blindside) and attacking the center of gravity (the horizontal centerline) from there..."

Do they do this flanking with the triangle step? Or other kinds of steps?

Because the most important step (in addition to the entry) in TWC
in terms of flanking is the FULL SIDESTEP.

This is similar to the matador facing the charging bull...the matador stands in kind of a neutral stance waving the red "flag"
and then pulls his foot and the flag away when the bull charges by turning his whole body away...LIKE A DOOR COMPLETELY OPENING UP BY ITS HINGES A FULL 90 DEGREES.

Because if you're not talking about this move then you have no point...Put that another way:

The Pien San and the Chung Bo systems you refer to are NOT doing the same TWC flanking moves without the full sidestep...
Which is the best sidestep I've ever seen...and there are a number of variations of it used in TWC as well...ie. -the footwork is slightly (but still significantly) different when one is in a front stance...rather than a neutral or a neutral side stance.

To be continued...

[KPM]

---Hey Victor, I'm not Jim, but since I have asked you the same question.......

I don't know why Wong Wah Bo may or may not have taught Leung Jan differently than others...and I don't care!
And do you know why I don't care?...Which is the same reason why I've ignored you about this until now...

---And see that's the problem! People on these various threads have been making some very valid points that show the problems with the old TWC story and you have simply ignored them. This makes for a somewhat frustrating and pointless discussion. I'll state again, try listening to what others have to say!

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to really know what happened back then. I see what you're getting at, but who knows why some things may have been kept secret and other things not? Who knows why some people may have been favored over others?

---I think that the main point was to show that there appears to be a pretty major factual error in the old TWC story. The old story is that Leung Jan was the one that "modified" his WCK and then taught it to Chan Wah Shun. But going by the similarities in the existing lineages, if anyone actually "modified" WCK it would have had to be Wong Wah Bo and not Leung Jan. The old TWC story even provided a reason or motivation for the "modification" (to hide the "real" deal from CWS), but there would appear to be no apparent motivation for Wong to have modified what he taught. So this brings into question the accuracy of the "history" provided by TWC, and whether WCK was ever "modified" at all.


Sometimes...(not always, but sometimes)... the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

---True. And it sure seems that there is no history of TWC to be found further back than William Cheung.

And in the present, there is this TWC system that had to come from somewhere...William Cheung says it came from Leung Bik...and Yip Chun makes some very revealing remarks in that interview that seems to give some (and in my opinion, more than some)...but let's just say...some...credence to William Cheung's claims.

---I'll say it again. Yip Chun repeated an old story about his father, not only in keeping with an old Chinese propensity to save face by not contradicting what others have said, but also to promote himself to some extent. The story likely originated when Yip Man first got to Hong Kong and was first starting to teach in order to promote his classes. This story is NOT told by Yip Man's Foshan students. William Cheung's version of the Leung Bik story is the only one to say anything about Yip Man learning an entirely different version of WCK. Prior to William Cheung the story was only that Yip Man learned more advanced theory and concepts from Leung Bik. It is very easy to see (to those willing to look) how the Leung Bik story could be somewhat "elaborated" upon to give Leung Bik a completely new style of WC totally unknown to anyone else. Stories tend to grow with the telling. And I will ask for a THIRD time....if you believe that Yip Chun supports William Cheung's story, do you also believe that Yip Man taught his son the advanced knowledge he learned from Leung Bik as Yip Chun implies by his telling of the story? Victor it is time to stop ignoring the valid points being made that poke holes in the TWC history.

Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,



I don't know why Wong Wah Bo may or may not have taught Leung Jan differently than others...and I don't care!

Thats part of the problem. Did you even ever think it of it like that or did you always believe Leung Jan just came up with some wrong version on his own?

And do you know why I don't care?...Which is the same reason why I've ignored you about this until now...

I would like to know.

Because it's IMPOSSIBLE to really know what happened back then. I see what you're getting at, but who knows why some things may have been kept secret and other things not? Who knows why some people may have been favored over others?

Ok. I agree with you! Yet! Using your own logic how can you you be such a firm believer in the Leung Bik story when its IMPOSSIBLE to know and most information shows its next to impossible to be true. Nobody knows but all we can go with is what is more likely and cross check the lineages to figure out what is more likely rather than less likley.

Do you know? Does anybody living in the present know?

I know what is more likley. All I have to do is check the two lineages coming from Wong Wah Bo and check other Red Boat's lineages (like Yik Kam) and they are all ultra similar so.

Sometimes...(not always, but sometimes)... the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

Yes! Totally agree and thats why all we need to do is check the present lineages stemming from the Red Boat that can trace back to the Red Boat with a verifiable tree and then go from there.

And in the present, there is this TWC system that had to come from somewhere...William Cheung says it came from Leung Bik...and Yip Chun makes some very revealing remarks in that interview that seems to give some (and in my opinion, more than some)...but let's just say...some...credence to William Cheung's claims.

Yip Chun is only repeating the same old story that was used back then to support his dad's so-called advanced theory/training with Bik. He makes no mention of learning another art.

I'll have more to say later...Gotta go now.


Take care,

[yuanfen]

Jim R. sez:

Do you know? Does anybody living in the present know?

((Probably not- but definitely not you, Rene or I. So we have Ip Man's story of who influenced him- what's the big deal?
I dont see how turning these tea leaves-improves ones wing chun))

.

Sometimes...(not always, but sometimes)... the best way to study history is by starting in the present and working backwards.

((Murky historiography and methinks-largely a waste of time))

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Joy!


Victor wrote that stuff not I!


Cheers,

[yuanfen]

Hi Jim-

Ok. Thanks. If so- sorry.

The logic applies to him too.
I couldnt distinguish his stuff from your's in your last long post.
The paragraphs follow each other in the same script- or seemed to.

Of course I dont accept Victor's "history" either. If TWC folks believe that stuff- i leave them alone. Its when someone claims that what they do is superior- then the burden is on them to show. Hiding behind stories wont do.

joy

[reneritchie]

Hey Victor,

We have several ways, I'm not sure if any was unique to Cheung Bo sijo. We have single and double angle steps, which I think the Yip Man folk call "triangle". We also have a side step where you literally step sideways in Kim Yeung Ma. And we have a half-horse side step which comes from Fung Siu-Ching tai sijo. In application, it is all combined together as needed, so I can angle into or around, turn like a door into (though probably different than you -- if Phil has a clip up maybe I can check and see?), or in other ways take the side or even back (even safer than side sometimes ;)

BTW- Since you brought up the entry, is that something you believe William Cheung learned or something he developed like the elbow watching or the new knife form? I've heard an account that he developed the entry in Australia, at a hotel, after seeing a karateka use it and then exchanging with him. I've been unable to verify this, however.

[Jim Roselando]

Hiya Rene,


We have several ways, I'm not sure if any was unique to Cheung Bo sijo. We have single and double angle steps, which I think the Yip Man folk call "triangle". We also have a side step where you literally step sideways in Kim Yeung Ma.

Same here. Its all KYM anyhow! JR

And we have a half-horse side step which comes from Fung Siu-Ching tai sijo. In application, it is all combined together as needed, so I can angle into or around, turn like a door into (though probably different than you -- if Phil has a clip up maybe I can check and see?), or in other ways take the side or even back (even safer than side sometimes

Not sure about FSC's half horse but the rest sounds pretty much identical to what we do.

Speaking of the back! Sifu has mentioned to me that Wong Wah Sam was so quick with his footwork that he would often get the back of his opponents very easily. We also have a little phrase that is used; Biu to the center, Tang to the side.


Regards,

[fa_jing]

Yeah, I think we call it 3-angle step, not triangle step, my bad, my terminology su(ks. It can look like this: |_| or like this _ or like
| |

this: |_\ , etc. However, not to confuse you with the diagrams above, it looks like the wooden man footwork but it's not, because your stance is facing "out" along the vertical lines instead of "in" like when you're moving around the wooden man. The main thing is that in my lineage (unlike many others), we usually fight starting with one foot forward, so this allows you to "triangle" out to the side and re-angle in with the other foot. We also have side-stepping from the forward stance, side stepping from the side-on stance, circular (huen ma) stepping, bracing stepping etc. If you combine all of these you have a nice menu of footwork to choose from. Not to say these are all the same as the William Chueng or other lineage's footwork, there are definitely differences in training and application. But in terms of flanking in general, yes this footwork allows you to do that.

[fa_jing]

Oh, and the concept of stepping out to the side and re-angling in is very similar to Chueng's usage of the T-stance stepping. Except in our case, again will usually start from the front stance, so we'll pull back that front leg and swing it out to the side, then bring the rear foot up to the front foot (like your T-stance, except without switching feet) and step in with what was the rear leg, to re-angle in. The feet follow slightly curved paths like with huen ma. I think the difference being with the use of the T- stance, you would step in with that same front foot.

[Phil Redmond]

You've asked a few times regarding GM Cheung's education. If you met him you wouldn't have to ask. Yes, he does have a degree in statistics. You're stuck on saying that he didn't go to school. Do you know that for sure?......grin.
To answer your last question my opinion is that Cheung looked after Yip Man when they lived together and when Yip Man went out on his "excursions". They had to have been tight. Of course none of us will know all the truth for sure.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Even though part of what I'm about to say contradicts part of what my sifu, William Cheung, has been saying all these years -
I feel compelled to share with all of you a "theory" that occurred to me last night, by way of an explanation to the TWC mystery/controversy.

Could it be that the original system was NOT TWC and modified was NOT the "second" system of wing chun...produced by Leung Jan to fool Chan Wah Shun; but rather, could the truth be the other way around? That is:

Wing Chun - at least the lineage that Leung Jan originally came from - started out as "modified" - ie. pidgeon-toed, bent wrist bong sao, no FULL sidestep in the footwork, no entry technique, no blindside strategy, no rules of foot placement when in cross or parallel leg position...AND THEN...as time went on...and through
trial and error - more advanced pieces were added to the puzzle?

The horizontal and vertical centerlines used in the original system eventually hit a wall, so to speak, ie.- wing chun fighters were getting outflanked...the charge straight ahead strategy was being countered by kicks to the groin...by hooking punches, etc..and...over time...the ENTRY TECHNIQUE emerged as a means of bridging the gap safely...THE CENTRAL LINE THEORY with the ADVANCED FOOTWORK to support it also emerged to prevent the opponent from outflanking the wing chun fighter...the NEUTRAL SIDE STANCE replaced the neutral stance because it presents less target to the opponent...the rules of foot placement...the blindside emphasis...etc...in other words - EVOLUTION TOOK OVER.

All of these things - compared to what I learned in vingtsun with Moy Yat - have all made a huge difference in my ability to fight with wing chun. Now of course, people like Rene and others, will be quick to tell me that this is "just my opinion" based upon my own "subjective" experiences...BUT...it is also the opinion by now of hundreds (and possibly thousands) of people worldwide who have previously studied modified and now do Traditional Wing Chun...and in the words of General Schwartzkopf (of the first war with Iraq)...Quantity has a Quality all its own.

The fact that so many people who previously studied modified agree with what I'm saying has to be taken into account - (hopefully without resorting to the mindless claim that we all have been brainwashed by a powerful "marketing ploy"). You can't brainwash a victory in a real streetfight brought about by a well-executed entry technique...a personal experience of mine...and of other people I have spoken to as well.

There has to come a point where this "subjective" observation graduates to "objective" phenomena. Anyway..back to this "theory":

Eventually this newer "material" became very highly regarded AND VERY HIGHLY GUARDED.......secret......This would account for why Leung Jan left out the more advanced stuff when he was teaching people other than his two sons; and besides, as Yip Chun points out in his interview...
"Master Chan Wah Soon was not quite an educated person,and it is better to be well educated in order for one to study the arts and get more understanding from them. As for the theory of Wing Chun, Master Chan Wah Soon did not know much about it, so frankly Grandmaster Yip Man did not receive much knowledge about the arts from him. When he studied Wing chun with Leung Bik, Yip Man was much older and Leung Bik was quite experienec and with better understanding of Wing Chun. So Grandmaster Yip Man received the real knowledge of Wing Chun when he was an adult..."

And yet again (with the new theory in hand) let's revisit the other quote from Yip Chun...

"Grandmaster Yip Man says there is some theory that seems untouchable in Wing Chun and when he was in his boyhood he was not able to catch the idea..."
And once more I have to remind all of you that given the simplicity of the horizontal and vertical centerline theories...it is highly unlikely that Yip Chun was referring to them...(Facing-the-point-of-contact...in terms of the strike or the kick coming at you...and the corresponding footwork that supports this...in other words...the central line theory...is clearly more complicated to grasp and perform with skill).

Am I onto something?

If you respond by saying...No, you're just "on" something...drugs..
I' ll laugh...for a minute...like I'm doing right now...but then I'll expect some serious answers.

This theory would also explain why TWC doesn't show up PUBLICLY until William Cheung decided to do so...As for Garrett Gee and the similarities of Hung Fa Yi to TWC...aside from repeating again that there is no evidence to support the allegation of a Cheung/Gee connection...I don't know what to make of him.

As regards the story of Leung Jan changing things when deciding to teach Chan Wah Shun...if my theory is correct...he didn't "suddenly" invent modified...he simply dropped all the TWC elements of the system when Chan Wah Shun was around.

As to why would William Cheung change this part of the story...
I'll venture a guess...He wanted to deflect people's attention away from the fact that the TWC elements of wing chun were always TRADITIONALLY regarded as something to be kept secret;
because he decided he was going to make a career (and money)out of teaching it worldwide (which I and countless others are grateful for)...and by saying that modified was invented by Leung Jan when Chan Wah Shun came along...William Cheung gives more credence to the fact that TWC is the advanced material.

I realize that I am leaving myself open to things like..."Well now, look at this - one of Cheung's students' is calling him a liar"...

the fact is...that's not what I've said...I'm just giving you folks a "guess"...a "possible theory"...to explain certain mysteries that surround TWC.

[KPM]

Even though part of what I'm about to say contradicts part of what my sifu, William Cheung, has been saying all these years -
I feel compelled to share with all of you a "theory" that occurred to me last night, by way of an explanation to the TWC mystery/controversy.

---Victor I applaud your effort to finally "think outside of the box." Maybe you are starting to consider some of the points we have been trying to make?

Wing Chun - at least the lineage that Leung Jan originally came from - started out as "modified" - ie. pidgeon-toed, bent wrist bong sao, no FULL sidestep in the footwork, no entry technique, no blindside strategy, no rules of foot placement when in cross or parallel leg position...AND THEN...as time went on...and through
trial and error - more advanced pieces were added to the puzzle?

---I think this idea is very likely. However, I don't think what you are calling TWC was in "full bloom" as early as Wong Wah Bo or Leung Jan. The changes made to "modified" WCK to turn it into TWC were likely made much later.

Eventually this newer "material" became very highly regarded AND VERY HIGHLY GUARDED.......secret......

---Why? And if it became the favored method for winning fights with WCK, how could it remain a secret? Leung Jan was known for winning many challenge matches. If he was using these elements that you claim as unique to TWC wouldn't people notice? Wouldn't his students speak up and say "hey, why aren't you teaching us that!"? I think all these theories of "secret Chinese method" are out to lunch.

This would account for why Leung Jan left out the more advanced stuff when he was teaching people other than his two sons;

---And why? Why keep it a secret from his students? To a large extent the reputation of the sifu, the kwoon, and the WCK style would rest upon the quality of students produced. Leung Jan had more students than just his sons and Chan Wah Shun. Why would he purposefully keep things from them? And you mentioned an evolution, implying that Leung Jan was not the only one involved in the development of TWC. If the evolution included Leung Jan's teacher, then why don't some of these elements of TWC show up in the other lineage that descended from him....Yuen Kay Shan WCK? And if these developments were underway with Leung Jan, then why didn't they show up in what he taught at the end of his career in Koo Lo village? But then again, maybe they did! Both Jim and Rene have stated that they have footwork that is similar to that of TWC. And after all, "Pien San" WCK means "side body" ....indicating an emphasis on what TWC calls the "side neutral" stance. Leave out all the ideas of things being so "secret" and your theory may have some merit.


Am I onto something?

---In the sense that you are starting to see that there are some holes in the old TWC rhetoric....yes! :-) In the sense that you are proposing an evolution in the development of TWC rather than a "dumbing down" to create "modified" WCK....yes! I have far fewer problems with this theory of yours than with the old TWC story.

This theory would also explain why TWC doesn't show up PUBLICLY until William Cheung decided to do so.

---How does it explain that? Other than this mysterious emphasis on everything being secret for some unknown reason.

..As for Garrett Gee and the similarities of Hung Fa Yi to TWC...aside from repeating again that there is no evidence to support the allegation of a Cheung/Gee connection...I don't know what to make of him.

---Me either. But even though there may be no currently known evidence of a Cheung/Gee connection, it is the theory that explains things the best.

As regards the story of Leung Jan changing things when deciding to teach Chan Wah Shun...if my theory is correct...he didn't "suddenly" invent modified...he simply dropped all the TWC elements of the system when Chan Wah Shun was around.

---But then this idea would involve believing that TWC was "fully formed" with Leung Jan. How is that an "evolution?" If it was fully formed with Leung Jan, then we should see more evidence of it in what he taught his students. The beginnings of this evolution were likely present with Leung Jan, but I think the total composite recognizable as TWC came much later.

As to why would William Cheung change this part of the story...
I'll venture a guess...He wanted to deflect people's attention away from the fact that the TWC elements of wing chun were always TRADITIONALLY regarded as something to be kept secret;
because he decided he was going to make a career (and money)out of teaching it worldwide (which I and countless others are grateful for)...and by saying that modified was invented by Leung Jan when Chan Wah Shun came along...William Cheung gives more credence to the fact that TWC is the advanced material.

---Again, kudos for actually daring to contradict what your sifu has taught. I can go along with the idea that Cheung Sifu was motivated by the desire to promote a career in teaching TWC. What I have a problem with is this entire "traditional secret" method idea.


the fact is...that's not what I've said...I'm just giving you folks a "guess"...a "possible theory"...to explain certain mysteries that surround TWC.

---Again, your effort is much appreciated. Thanks for finally attempting to think of something other than the "party line." Now maybe you will consider going back and trying to answer some of the questions and points that were put to you earlier in the thread? :-)

Keith

[Stevo]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
Stevo wrote;
"YM's deep teaching to Bruce Lee? Bruce Lee did not learn the whole system. Recently i saw a tv interview with william cheung. he said in that interview that he himself taught bruce lee everything. someone in hollywood is making a movie about it."

Phil

I didn't write that. Someone else wrote it and I quoted it.

[sel]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
You've asked a few times regarding GM Cheung's education. If you met him you wouldn't have to ask. Yes, he does have a degree in statistics. You're stuck on saying that he didn't go to school. Do you know that for sure?......grin.
To answer your last question my opinion is that Cheung looked after Yip Man when they lived together and when Yip Man went out on his "excursions". They had to have been tight. Of course none of us will know all the truth for sure.

lol, not stuck on it... anerlich set me straight.

there are people who know the truth. lok yiu and tsui seung tin were there. they did live with yip man. tsui seung tin was living with yip man the longest out of anyone.

quote tsui seung tin: "regarding the question of "closed door" students: yip man did not specify who would be closed door students. those people who had close contact with him and who trained solely with him, are generally regarded by the public as "closed door" students.
leung seung, lok yiu and i all lived with yip man for several years while learning wing chun. it is most likely that this is how the term "closed door" students came about.
there have been claims that there was more than one form of wing chun taught by yip man. i understand there has only ever been one."

[Phil Redmond]

Stevo,
Oops. I thought it was you. My apologies.
PR

[sleestack]

All of these secret TWC techniques can be found in Jui Wan WC as well. The t-step; facing point of contact; the full side step (though it's not called that); V-line stepping; emphasis on blind side (but not limited to); the entry technique; these are all in our system.

Jui Wan trained under Chan Wah Shun (some say CWS's son) in Fatshan and was junior to yip man. Later in Hong Kong he helped teach in the yip man school and also taught privately on the side. (Francis Fong; Jason Lau; etc...) Now... Leung Bik doesn't even enter this picture. (unless you say the Leung Bik "secret techniques" knowledge came through Yip Man to Jui Wan. But that's not supposed to have happened, right?) So from this can we conclude that CWS taught these methods?

Personally, I think the stripped down method came from Yip Man and his desire to simplify wing chun. I would even quess that many of his students had probably seen or heard of the extra footwork either from YM himself or through being exposed to other lineages, but instead chose to follow his lead in streamlining their wing chun. Maybe William Cheung liked the idea of these methods and got Yip Man to show him some. It's not that far fetched if he did in fact live with Yip Man for a while. Then, he picked up the ball, eventually called it Traditional Wing Chun, and ran with it. Of course this is just speculation. I could be wrong.

[sel]

"During the last Cheung seminar I attended, in may 2002, I asked Cheung his opinion of other WC sifus and his remark was basically that they were nobody and that he is the true Grandmaster.
In 1993 he openly sent out a photograph of Yip Man and his students; including Tsui Seung Tin, Wong Shun Leung and Leung Tin; saying they are all useless."
- william cheung student

so what's that all about?

[anerlich]

sel,

I don't know if the photo incident is true, but this is pretty standard behaviour for William Cheung, unfortunately. Not that he's alone, there's a long tradition of Sifus badmouthing each other. In Adelaide about 15 years ago two fairly prominent Aussie WC teachers of HK birth (neither was Cheung) got into a sniping match which ended in a fight and one of them being hospitalised.

Apparently Cheung made a similar sort of disparaging speech at the more recent big WC gathering in HK recently.

The photo story seems a bit unlilkely and uncharatible to Wong Shun Leung, who by all accounts remained friendly to Cheung and assisted him when he was in HK. I think, like most of the others mentioned except Leung Ting, Wong didn't take his more aniumated rantings with any seriousness.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Keith:

You're saying that the more "likely" theory is that Cheung/Gee know each other makes absolutely no sense to me...if but, for no other reason than this:

1) The ego of William Cheung is such that - trust me - there's no way that he taught Garrett Gee and is not taking credt for it ...
as for Garrett Gee teaching William Cheung...if he's willing enough to write and claim such an incredible historical heritage that leads directly to him...then he's also someone who would take credit for teaching someone as world-reknowned as William Cheung.

More about your other points later.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Sleestack:

You say that the TWC techniques can be found in Jui Wan wc as well...You also mention that one of his students was Jason Lau.

I remember Jason Lau's school here in Brooklyn back in the day-I've met him; his own brother Richard studied with Moy Yat while I was there - and my friend, Miguel Hernandez, who I've mentioned several times -studied with Jason Lau before studying with Moy Yat...

How come NONE of the aforementioned techniques, principles, and strategies ever showed up with any of these people I've just mentioned?

[t_niehoff]

sleestack wrote:

All of these secret TWC techniques can be found in Jui Wan WC as well. The t-step; facing point of contact; the full side step (though it's not called that); V-line stepping; emphasis on blind side (but not limited to); the entry technique; these are all in our system. S

Thanks for being another to point out that other lineages have all these things too. And it just reinforces the point that ignorance (not being familiar with these other lineages) and the blind reliance on what they are told that leads certain followers to make the claims of "only we have these things." TN

Jui Wan trained under Chan Wah Shun (some say CWS's son) . . . S

I believe it was CWS's son as Yip Man was the least senior of CWS's disciples. TN

in Fatshan and was junior to yip man. Later in Hong Kong he helped teach in the yip man school and also taught privately on the side. (Francis Fong; Jason Lau; etc...) S

And Yip Man apparently thought highly of him. TN

Now... Leung Bik doesn't even enter this picture. (unless you say the Leung Bik "secret techniques" knowledge came through Yip Man to Jui Wan. But that's not supposed to have happened, right?). S

Exactly. TN

So from this can we conclude that CWS taught these methods? S

Of course -- as it is WCK. But you won't get the "followers" to believe you. It's called cognitive dissonance. ;) TN

Terence

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


Good to see you re-thinking your views in different ways!


I still think you may need to look outside Leung Jan/Leung Bik IMO. You mention Jan teaching his two sons the true/advanced stuff but you keep forgeting about the other family he taught like Leung Bak Chung in Koo Lo. Its really nice to link to the famed Dr. Leung Jan but unfortunately it just doesn't seem possible. All evidence is against it.


Lets look at a few things!


Your first form is Siu Nim Tao correct? Well, thats not the name of Leung Jan's first form. Also, didn't Willeum learn his first form from Tsui Son Tin as it looks most similar to his? Its basically a modified version of Yip's 1st form what you are doing.

You make use of Don Chi Sao correct? Well, Yip Man created that drill and its not found in Leung Jan's other teaching/lineages unless of course they have some link to YM.

You make use of Luk Sao correct? Well, Leung Jan did not have this platform as he made use of the Circling Hands platforms. Only people who link to YKS and YM make use of this.

You make use of the term Baat Jam Do correct? Well, Leung Jan's knives were called Yee Jee Yum Yeung Dit Ming Dao as was his classmates knives. Baat Jam Do was YM's term.

Your second for is called Chum Kiu (seaching for the bridge) correct? Well, Leung Jan's second for was not called searching but rather Sinking Bridge! That seems to be mainly used by the YMWC folks.

You make use of the Lop Sao drill correct? Well, that was not the term for Leung Jan's version of this drill which is more similar to the Gwai Bong drill of his classmate Fok Bo Chuen working with the Gwa Choi versus the Chung Choi in YMWC.


As you can see there is too much Yip Man WC to be directly from Leung Jan. I am happy to see you are opening up to more views but you really need to look outside the Leung family IMO.


Regards,

[reneritchie]

Victor,

Interesting theory. I have no problem with any theory, as long as they're clearly labeled as such. You were honorable and ethical enough to do that, and I respect it highly.

Most theories will have problems with them, especially initially. That's part of the process. You propose a theory, get feedback, investigate, experiment, get more feedback, refine the theory, and repeat until the theory seems to hold up.

Where ever TWC came from, be it Leung Bik or anyone else, its clearly a system that has been proven by William Cheung sifu, and by generations of his students. The rest is just tea chat, we should enjoy it as the mental distraction it is, but not get any indigestion over it.

(Now Phil, please stop hogging the Chun Goon, and pass 'em on down!)

[fa_jing]

well Phil Redmond said it a while ago, that he didn't care if a space alien taught William Chueng, that in his experience it was a much better system than the style he experienced from other Yip Man students. Which is a reasonable opinion. It's just the specific "sell" that W. Chueng put out that most of us have issues with. And I got a lot of that from my first teacher, so it's a common practice in his organization.

And as Rene said, martial fishing tales seem to be rampant in the CMA community, so this isn't so unusual.

Even in my TKD class (many years ago), they were talking about how TKD was superior to other arts, and that our particular variation of TKD was superior to the others.

[KPM]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Keith:

You're saying that the more "likely" theory is that Cheung/Gee know each other makes absolutely no sense to me...if but, for no other reason than this:

1) The ego of William Cheung is such that - trust me - there's no way that he taught Garrett Gee and is not taking credt for it ...
as for Garrett Gee teaching William Cheung...if he's willing enough to write and claim such an incredible historical heritage that leads directly to him...then he's also someone who would take credit for teaching someone as world-reknowned as William Cheung.

More about your other points later.

---Well Victor, those are good points. But TWC and HFY look so much alike. HFY includes the Luk Sao platform for Chi Sao which was developed by the YKSWCK and YMWCK lineages. HFY includes Dan Chi Sau which was developed by the YMWCK lineage. HFY uses the term "Bart Jam Dao" for the knife form, which is a term coined by Yip Man. It sure seems that HFY has a connection to YMWCK somewhere, and since the form choreography matches that of TWC, TWC is the main logical candidate in my book. Maybe each of them have a very good reason to keep any kind of past relationship a secret. After, TWC and HFY both seem to be big on secrets. :-)

Keith

[reneritchie]

Victor,

Here's another theory. What if the Leung Bik story is true, but he learned the same WCK as Chan Wah-Shun, Lo Kwai, Ngau Shu, etc. Then, after he left Foshan (perhaps even losing his fight to Chan Wah-Shun) he spent years developing a new version, and then passed it on to Yip Man, using the "traditional" story because in Chinese culture it's impolite to claim credit for developing something new.

Keith,

Remember at the VTM Friendship Seminar, Gee sifu told us he'd adapted the terminology of Yip Man WCK because many of his early students came from YMWCK and he thought it would be easier for them to understand? Combine that with Gee sifu being friends with Chris Chan for years, and he could easily have been showing something to give context. Perhaps not likely, but something to consider, as the HFY maintain they have Luk Sao but nothing like the YKS/YM platform.

[Geezer]

KPM Wrote>

It sure seems that HFY has a connection to YMWCK somewhere

Have you ever thought that YMWCK has a connection to HFY??????


Sheldon

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Sheldon,

This is a possiblility. Do you mean directly with Yip Man meeting some one in HFY, or indirectly? being influenced by HFY? Yip Man knew many people, but there is nothing said about HFY or its other name that i have heard any one discuss, though we run into mentions of other lineages here and there. Not that this means a lot one way or the other. However, when I was at Garrett Gee sifu's school, he told me about how they would silently watch others like Sum Nung practice outside. He relayed how others did not KNOW they they practiced wing chun. Gee said that they were unknown. So I would have to say that from this, directly from Gee Sifu's mouth, no, Yip Man was not influenced directly by HFY.

Do you have any ideas or theories?

Tom

[Ultimatewingchun]

Keith:

You just don't seem to get it about HFY in your opinion coming from TWC...That's quite possibly the truth - but if you're saying that therefore Garrett Gee was taught by William Cheung...

There's just NO WAY that William Cheung would ever allow anybody he taught to use his stuff without giving him credit fot it...He would have told EVERYBODY about it by now if it were true.

Also: You asked why keep TWC a secret from his (Leung Jan's)
students? It might gain him more students if his existing students went out with his "Best Stuff" and won fights?

We are talking about pre-communist, feudal China,are we not? Sorry Jim, but keepin things tight within one's own family (secrecy) was more prevalent then than it is now...and it's still very strong within Chinese culture, almost everywhere a Chinese community exists. Fortunately for the rest of us interested in Kung Fu...things have loosened up a bit...and you can thank people like Bruce Lee, William Cheung, Leung Ting and others for leading the way...

Also: You say that if my theory is correct then elements of TWC should have found their way into Yuen Kay Shan's stuff...I say it did - and will say more about that in a future post.

You also say that my theory would involve believing that TWC was "fully formed" with Leung Jan...NOT TRUE...I never said that.
Didn't Yip Man develop dan chi sao? Hasn't William Cheung (just picking up on this one example) added some variations to dan chi
sao? (Yes, he has). He's added other things as well.

.........................................

Terence: Didn't you see my post in response to Sleestack's statement abouy Jui Wan? None of the TWC material allegedly descended from Jui Wan showed up here in New York. Perhaps Jui Wan did learn some TWC from Yip Man...perhaps not...But it didn't make it here.

.........................................

Jim: If Siu Nim Tao is not Leung Jan's first form...then where did Yip Man get it? (Putting aside the Leung Bik/Yip Man connection for a moment) - he got it from Chan Wah Shun. And where did Chan Wah Shun get it?.......From someone other than Leung Jan?

On dan chi sao: So Yip Man may have invented it and William Cheung has added some evolutionary variations of his own...So What? It's a good drill.

As to luk sao: TWC luk sao is very different than Moy Yat's, or Victor Kan's, or Mak Po's, or Jason Lau's...or any other luk sao I've ever seen or experienced...
As soon as someone tries to move you off the centerline in any way, shape, or form...or if his fuk sa is not formed correctly or with an improper energy, (just using a few examples)-you must attack or counterattack immediately (even if it means completely disengaging one or both hands temporarily..even if it means the full sidestep footwork, etc.)

TWC chi sao is really just a preparatoty DRILL leading to san sao...The luk sao aspect doesn't last HARDLY ANY AMOUNT OF TIME AT ALL when two experienced people are doing chi sao
competitively... It's gone in the blink of an eye...The only time in TWC you will see rolling hands , let's say, three or four times in a row is when it is an agreed upon non-competitive drill aimed at ALLOWING you and your partner to develop skills at certain attacks and/or counters.

THERE'S VERY LITTLE LUK SAO WHEN CHI SAO IS DONE COMPETITIVELY....in TWC.

As to sinking bridges or searching bridges...you're really trying to split hairs too finely here...The same for what EXACT words are used to describe the butterfly swords or the lop sao drill...I just don't see your point.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

Interesting idea about Leung Bik possibly coming yp with the central line theory...the sidestepping footwork, etc.....

after losing to Chan Wah Shun.

Maybe.......

Glad to see that you're at least flirting with the idea that Leung Bik might have had this "stuff"....the next step is to admit the possibility that he passed it on to Yip Man.

[Geezer]

Tom Wrote>

Do you mean directly with Yip Man meeting some one in HFY, or indirectly? being influenced by HFY?

I find that everyone wants to make reference to HFY looking through(majority of people)YMWCK eyes.......I guess this is because this is nearly everyones only refrence point. It could be a possibilty that Yip Man spied the HFY one day.

This brings me to this,why is it that no-one in the YMWCK family are consistent, everyones WCK looks different yet in the HFY family they have stated many times that they work to specifics, so in way it's like a production line.

Who knows maybe I'm out in left field???

Sheldon;)

[tparkerkfo]

Victor,

This may have been answered, but, is William even aware of HFY and Garrett Gee? If so, does he have any comments?
Tom

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Sheldon,

Could Yip Man have spied on HFY? Sure it is possible. But there are a couple interesting things to keep in mind. One is that accorrding to Gee sifu, HFY was not known to outsiders. Sum Nung and others did not know there was such a system, which is why they could watch him work out. Garrett has said that they were in complete secrecy, and I think I recall him saying he did even know some of his sihings. I can't recall if that was Gee sifu or another person that told me that. The whole point was secrecy and know one knowing about it.

Also, Yip Man worked for the police as a detective, if I am not mistaken. Though I have heard different accounts of his exact position. In anycase, HFY had underworld ties, hence the secrecy. So I doubt Yip Man would have known who was HFY and who was not, atleast in the sense that he would spy on them. Though it is possible.

The truth can be confusing and complicated. Though in most cases it is often best to take simpler solutions. Ockahm's razor has often been a useful tool in such circumstance, though it has been wrong. I think we should be careful about fanciful theories. Simpler is usually better and closer to fact. Admidittly not always though. But the hard thing to do is to defend something with no track record, completly unknown, etc. One reason for the consistency of HFY, is because it all comes from Garrett Gee or Benny Meng. We will see in the next 5 years what it looks like. I would love to have another HFY person surface in HK or mainland china. If that happens, I guess a lot of us will have egg on our face ; )

Tom

[Ultimatewingchun]

I've given you folks a thread to follow (in more ways than one)...
if you want to understand what TWC is, where it came from, and how, when, and why the misunderstanding and controversy about it began...keep your eyes, ears, and especially your minds open...READ BETWEEN THE LINES AS WELL AS ON THEM..and meditate on it all.

Work with the moves - your, ours, and theirs - and see where it all goes and what conclusions you come to...it's not THAT hard to figure out; perhaps not down to the finest and smallest details in terms of historical names, dates, places, and events...though you might come close...but in general...looking at the BIG picture...it's not THAT difficult to understand what TWC really is...And where it came from...And Why..(evolution)......

And believe me when I tell you - especially those of you who have never seen the man in action...and WITHOUT ALLOWING quirks of personality (his and yours) to cloud your emotions...

Grandmaster William Cheung is an incredible martial artist, fighter, instructor, and strategist; and the system he teaches, which he calls TRADITIONAL WING CHUN KUNG FU... is awesome.

And furthermore, bits and pieces of it are to be found in some surprising places throughout the Yip Man lineage...and I don't discount the fact that some of the other-than-Yip Man/Leung Bik lineages may also have some "Advanced" wing chun elements that are not found in what we call TWC...as well as moves that are found in TWC.

For example...the Sum Nung article reprinted by Rene Ritchie...
while the closed and very narrow stance looks kind of awkward and not particularly balanced, mobile, or practical to me (granted, judging by photos is not the same as seeing it performed in person)...nonetheless...some of the stepping-behind-your-opponent and throwing or locking him moves look VERY good...
and not found in TWC. I should also point out that some of the moves in the articles' photos do look very similar to some TWC
responses ( ie.- vs. the high straight punch...and another one vs. a low rounded hooking ...responses not really found in "modified".

This will be my final post on this thread...I prefer to go back to discussing/debating a much more favorite subject of mine other than having to explain where TWC came from or having to defend my sifu, William Cheung, against all kinds of nonsense:

MIXED MARTIAL ARTS! Wing Chun and catch wrestling...Wing Chun and Jiu Jitsu...Wing Chun and Muay-Thai...Wing Chun and Western Boxing...

Where is KenWingJitsu? Where is AndrewS?

Where is Rolf Clausnitzer?

THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKIN' ABOUT....

[EclecticStorm]

Hey Victor,

For your info,
Si gung WSL told me in person , that he felt William Cheung had psycological problems, Which was why he had the need to make up stories.
And since you value Yip chun.s opinion, he said in an article in , I believe Combat, that William Cheung learned the SAME WCK, as everyone else. LEung Bik Refined Yip mans understanding, he did not teach him a differant system.

[yuanfen]

Eclectic Storm sez:

LEung Bik Refined Yip mans understanding, he did not teach him a differant system.
----------------------------------------------------

BINGO!

[old jong]

There are many flavors in Wing Chun.There is a variation suited best for anybody's expectations or tastes.It is very natural to favor the one we practice over others. We should evolve past these old and childish things.
I don't care if W.C. made up his story or not.The only thing important is: Are his students and his students students happy with their Wing Chun and effective with it?...I think they can answer this by themselves.

[sleestack]

Victor,

I don't know why Jason Lau didn't teach these techniques, concepts and strategies to your friend. I don't know much about Jason Lau. My lineage is through Francis Fong, and I know for a fact that he teaches these methods. Perhaps Jason Lau, like Yip Man, decided to conentrate on the more direct, minimalist aspects of wing chun. Who knows. But apparently other lineages train these methods. TWC does not have a corner on the market.

Having said that, I think TWC is a great system of fighting. I trained in it for 2 years (I was also fed the same political propaganda). But there are certain elements in the TWC mindset that I find limiting. In one of your posts you mention the flawed tan sao of "modified" wing chun because it's too low at chest level. The TWC tan sao is somewhat higher. Arguements on these points become irrelevant when you realize that wing chun is (or should be) a conceptual art and not a technique oriented art. Tan sao works at both levels and everywhere in between. These specific positions are merely a starting point for the beginner; a reference for what should eventually become a formless form. It should be this way with all positions. Even footwork. When you talk about the "modified" slide step being like trying to drive a car with the brake pressed, you're missing the point. The slide step is wing chun basics 101. It teaches the concept of rooting in movement. It's use in application is very subtle. You probably use it and don't even realize it. At higher levels footwork should become dynamic and free. It's only "set in stone" in the beginning.

It all has to do with having an empty cup. If your cup is full, then you've learned all you're ever going to learn in wing chun. I don't know much about him as a person, but I respect Robert Chu's approach to wing chun. If you approach wing chun as a conceptual art, the subtle differences between systems won't matter.

[reneritchie]

Hey Victor,

Regardless of the BS typically spread around here, I keep a *very* open mind. That doesn't mean I'll just take anyone's (or their sifus) word for things, but that I'll read what they propose, and if well supported, consider it carefully. If it makes very little sense, it gets thrown in the can. If it makes some sense, it gets kept around for more thought. Just make a case for it. You stepped up and gave a few interesting theories, clearly labeled as such, and you argued them (without whining or telling others they were too unenlightened to appreciate your new clothes). As I said, I don't decide one way or another about Leung Bik. I just let the information decide for me.

As to the Sum Nung material. We practice the narrow, side weighted horses because that is one extreme. Combined with the neutral Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma, we develop the full range. Then we know, when in the stress of combat, that we can handle anything, and aren't suddenly found trying to root on one leg when we've never worked on it.

Some of the pictured material descends from my second tai sijo, Fung Siu-Ching, from whom also descends Chi Sim Weng Chun Kuen, which is perhaps why you don't see it in "pure" Wong Wah-Bo lineages (although others have figured similar things out on their own, and still others have found inspiration for it out there, since its still core stuff, still linked back to the sets).

Thanks for the conversation!

[AndrewS]

Victor,

I'm here. I just don't have a lot to say about lineage or historical stuff. I don't find that it generates productive conversation (other than winning bets on how quickly any such thread will degenerate into a HFY flamewar).

Later,

Andrew

[t_niehoff]

Sleestack, great post . . . and just to add to it . . .

sleestack wrote:

These specific positions are merely a starting point for the beginner; a reference for what should eventually become a formless form. It should be this way with all positions. Even footwork. S

Exactly! Many -- but not all -- WCK instructors use "techniques" to teach the art either because they never went beyond that level themselves or because they are using them as fingers pointing toward the moon -- the concepts behind the technique (and the concepts need a physical expression and the technique permits them to demonstrate the concept). Unfortunately, some don't realize that's what is going on and take it as "this is how it must be done"; that is "beginner's thinking" -- and while we all go through that phase -- if one doesn't get beyond that type of thinking they will forever be a beginner however long they've been practicing WCK. Ultimately, our expression of WCK should be formless and how we apply our WCK will depend on our individual skills (what we bring to the fight), our opponent's skill level and what he is doing, and the relationship between us. TN

If you approach wing chun as a conceptual art, the subtle differences between systems won't matter. S

Yes, everyone uses the phrase "WCK is a conceptual art" but so many reveal that they don't understand what that means with their subsequent statements. If we really understand that tan, using your example, is a concept, then it follows that there can be no one way or best way to use it. Same with everything else. TN

Terence

[KPM]

Hi Rene!

Remember at the VTM Friendship Seminar, Gee sifu told us he'd adapted the terminology of Yip Man WCK because many of his early students came from YMWCK and he thought it would be easier for them to understand?

---Seems a convenient explanation, doesn't it? :-) But we are talking about more than terminology. I rolled briefly with Gee sifu at that seminar, and other than keeping the spacing between the arms a bit wider, it was essentially the same Luk Sao I knew from YMWCK.

Combine that with Gee sifu being friends with Chris Chan for years, and he could easily have been showing something to give context. Perhaps not likely, but something to consider, as the HFY maintain they have Luk Sao but nothing like the YKS/YM platform.

---Sure seemed similar to me! :-) Of course they can probably state that from a "conceptual" standpoint it is totally different. :-)
But I'll be the first to admit that my contact was brief and limited.

Keith

[KPM]

Hey Victor!

You just don't seem to get it about HFY in your opinion coming from TWC...That's quite possibly the truth - but if you're saying that therefore Garrett Gee was taught by William Cheung...
There's just NO WAY that William Cheung would ever allow anybody he taught to use his stuff without giving him credit fot it...He would have told EVERYBODY about it by now if it were true.

---Possibly. But maybe he has a very good reason for keeping it secret. I could very well be wrong. I'm just saying that it seems the simplest and most obvious explanation for now.

Also: You asked why keep TWC a secret from his (Leung Jan's)
students? It might gain him more students if his existing students went out with his "Best Stuff" and won fights?
We are talking about pre-communist, feudal China,are we not? Sorry Jim, but keepin things tight within one's own family (secrecy) was more prevalent then than it is now...and it's still very strong within Chinese culture,

---Then why didn't Leung Jan teach TWC to his nephew when he retired to Koo Lo villiage? And why did Leung Bik choose to break with the tradition and teach TWC to Yip Man? Two points that contradict the "family secret" part of the story.

Also: You say that if my theory is correct then elements of TWC should have found their way into Yuen Kay Shan's stuff...I say it did - and will say more about that in a future post.

---Sure. Elements that you claim are unique to TWC are found throughout the other lineages.

You also say that my theory would involve believing that TWC was "fully formed" with Leung Jan...NOT TRUE...I never said that.
Didn't Yip Man develop dan chi sao? Hasn't William Cheung (just picking up on this one example) added some variations to dan chi
sao? (Yes, he has). He's added other things as well.

---Well there you go! We end up agreeing on something. :-) I think the main thing we have accomplished in this thread is getting rid of the idea that "modified WCK" was the result of "dumbing down" or changing some preexisting more "traditional" and "superior" method.

Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


Sorry Jim, but keepin things tight within one's own family (secrecy) was more prevalent then than it is now...and it's still very strong within Chinese culture, almost everywhere a Chinese community exists.

Victor! Believe me. I know more about this than you can imagine. You have never met any Koo Lo folks and if you did you would understand. Years ago if you were not from Koo Lo village you had no chance of even being taught their WCK. Keep in mind you probally would be lucky to get the real stuff if you were not a family member or firend of family. Learning this art was like trying to get blood out of a stone back then and now! I just happen to be lucky! I know this story all too well.

Fortunately for the rest of us interested in Kung Fu...things have loosened up a bit...and you can thank people like Bruce Lee, William Cheung, Leung Ting and others for leading the way...

Yes. In some WC families. In others it did not help that much as they still maintain a very private nature.

Also: You say that if my theory is correct then elements of TWC should have found their way into Yuen Kay Shan's stuff...I say it did - and will say more about that in a future post.

I am not sure if I said that but I kind of remember saying if Wong Wh Bo taught Leung Jan and Fok Bo Chuen and both of them preserved their WC ultra similar then we may need to look elsewhere. Yet. I look forward to hearing your future post on this.

You also say that my theory would involve believing that TWC was "fully formed" with Leung Jan...NOT TRUE...I never said that.
Didn't Yip Man develop dan chi sao? Hasn't William Cheung (just picking up on this one example) added some variations to dan chi
sao? (Yes, he has). He's added other things as well.

Good. So we are getting somwhere. We realize its not Leung Jan as the root and final source.


Jim: If Siu Nim Tao is not Leung Jan's first form...then where did Yip Man get it? (Putting aside the Leung Bik/Yip Man connection for a moment) - he got it from Chan Wah Shun. And where did Chan Wah Shun get it?.......From someone other than Leung Jan?

Siu Nim Tau is not the "name" of Leung Jan's first form. Its not Little Idea! It was Little First Training! Plus. The way you guys persorm your SNT is different from the elements of Leung Jan's Siu Lin Tao that we preserve as the basics to our Koo Lo art. Its mainly a modified version of YipMan's form IMO.

On dan chi sao: So Yip Man may have invented it and William Cheung has added some evolutionary variations of his own...So What? It's a good drill.

Exactly! The point is that its not from Leung Jan and it shows that TWC is more than Leung Jan's secret system. We are making progress.

As to luk sao: TWC luk sao is very different than Moy Yat's, or Victor Kan's, or Mak Po's, or Jason Lau's...or any other luk sao I've ever seen or experienced...
As soon as someone tries to move you off the centerline in any way, shape, or form...or if his fuk sa is not formed correctly or with an improper energy, (just using a few examples)-you must attack or counterattack immediately (even if it means completely disengaging one or both hands temporarily..even if it means the full sidestep footwork, etc.)

TWC chi sao is really just a preparatoty DRILL leading to san sao...The luk sao aspect doesn't last HARDLY ANY AMOUNT OF TIME AT ALL when two experienced people are doing chi sao
competitively... It's gone in the blink of an eye...The only time in TWC you will see rolling hands , let's say, three or four times in a row is when it is an agreed upon non-competitive drill aimed at ALLOWING you and your partner to develop skills at certain attacks and/or counters.

THERE'S VERY LITTLE LUK SAO WHEN CHI SAO IS DONE COMPETITIVELY....in TWC.

Exactly but what you are saying is no different from our Circling Hands. All I am saying is if TWC was Leung Jan's secret system then it should have the training used by Leung Jan in it. So, once you realize Luk Sao is not from Leung Jan then we can see that TWC is more than Leung Jan's secret system.

As to sinking bridges or searching bridges...you're really trying to split hairs too finely here...The same for what EXACT words are used to describe the butterfly swords or the lop sao drill...I just don't see your point.

The point was made to show how if its supposed to be direct from Leung Jan then how come it does not make use of the Leung Jan proper terms/drills/etc.. Nothing to do with splitting hairs. We have to be able to explain our beliefs and by using these small examples one can add up a lot of little points that add up to show what was less likely or more likely.


Take care,

[reneritchie]

Keith,

If you remember, at the VTM Friendship Seminar, it was floated that William Cheung sifu learned a partial version of HFY from a sihing of Gee sifu.

Not sure if it was meant to, but it would imply that he didn't reveal it because switchin lineages back then wasn't looked highly upon, by any means, and he would not be senior (he'd be a nephew to Gee sifu's generation), both of which would be pretty common reasons to use the "Chinese fishing story" history.

Not sure if that theory holds water, as it is almost impossible to verify.

[KPM]

Hey Rene!

If you remember, at the VTM Friendship Seminar, it was floated that William Cheung sifu learned a partial version of HFY from a sihing of Gee sifu.

---No. I had forgotten about that. But that still wouldn't explain how HFY came to include a Luk Sau Chi Sau platform so similar to YMWCK & YKSWCK.

Not sure if it was meant to, but it would imply that he didn't reveal it because switchin lineages back then wasn't looked highly upon, by any means, and he would not be senior (he'd be a nephew to Gee sifu's generation), both of which would be pretty common reasons to use the "Chinese fishing story" history.

---Good point.

Not sure if that theory holds water, as it is almost impossible to verify.

---Not necessarily. Garret Gee isn't old. His sihings wouldn't necessarily be that old either. They should still be around. But then again, why have we not heard anything about any other HFY people? If Gee sifu has broken the tradition and "gone public", shouldn't we be hearing from some of these other HFY people? Did you see the HFY article in the newest "Inside Kung Fu" mag? Pictures of Gee sifu with Ken Chung, Chu Shong Tin, Chris Chan, Wong Shun Leung, and even Chan Sau Chung. But no pictures of him with any other HFY people. Makes be go "Hmmmmm......"

Keith

[Ultimatewingchun]

I find that I have to make one more post on this thread...

Keith wrote:
I think the main thing we have accomplished in this thread is getting rid of the idea that "modified WCK" was the result of the "dumbing down" or changing of some pre-existing more "traditional" and "superior" method.

And I (Victor) think that the main thing we have accomplished on this thread is the establishment of the possibility within some peoples' minds (who were TOTALLY sceptical before)...that TWC
may very well be the successive evolutionary steps that "modified WCK" took in order to change into something "superior".

.................................................. ......................................


Jim wrote:
"Good. So we are getting somewhere. We realize its not Leung Jan as the root and final source "..........(of TWC)

Yes...we are getting somewhere, Jim....The roots of TWC start right at the very beginning...presumably with the 5 elders....
makes a turn into modern day TWC somewhere between the 5 elders and William Cheung...exactly where...I don't know...but the fact that YOU haven't seen the connection yet (because you only acknowledge "the secrecy thing" when it suits you)...doesn't mean anything to me, quite frankly.

As to where the final source will lie? ....hopefully nowhere.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


Victor, I want you to know that this conversation was never about placing one higher or lower than anyone else. It was not about placing ones art higher or lower than anyone else. It was just about discussing the TWC views on its history and development and comparing that to other known or verifiable info..

Yes...we are getting somewhere, Jim....The roots of TWC start right at the very beginning...

I guess, as adults, we can agree to disagree. I just tend to think the art is to modern to show the charadcteristics of older WC.

presumably with the 5 elders....

We can agree to disagree with this as well because I firmly believe that the Five Elders were to the Chinese as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny was to us. Yet! If you want to do some looking into something a bit more interesting, or logical, you may want ot read about the so-called establishment of the "Five" Grand Lodges after the burning of the believed Fukien temple! I tend to think that makes more sense but would not say its the source of everything unless I had more info..

makes a turn into modern day TWC somewhere between the 5 elders and William Cheung...

I agree that it turned into TWC somewhere. Unfortunately, we may never know.

exactly where...I don't know...

True. Nobody does yet.

but the fact that YOU haven't seen the connection yet (because you only acknowledge "the secrecy thing" when it suits you)...doesn't mean anything to me, quite frankly.

Well Victor, you know that is just not true. I was the one who told "You" that I felt "You" didn't have enough understanding of Family Kung Fu and if you did you would understand how it would just not be possible, or logical, for a member of the Leung family passing on their secret/special/family art to just some stranger kid out of the blue from a meeting one day. So, I would have to say that statement was not accurate or fair.

As to where the final source will lie? ....hopefully nowhere.

If that makes you happy. Look! It really doesnt matter where all this stuff comes from now does it? The truth is as long as we are happy with what we are doing that is all that matters!


Take care and thanks for the chat!


Regards,

[t_niehoff]

Rene, Keith,

reneritchie wrote:

If you remember, at the VTM Friendship Seminar, it was floated that William Cheung sifu learned a partial version of HFY from a sihing of Gee sifu. RR

KPM responded:

---No. I had forgotten about that. But that still wouldn't explain how HFY came to include a Luk Sau Chi Sau platform so similar to YMWCK & YKSWCK. KPM

As you both may recall, I was there too . . . and I was very excited (as it was an unexpected bonus) about seeing Garrett Gee "publically unveil" HFY. I had read about it in CWC, and recognized, along with many others, the "similarities" it had with TWC. And, I had spoken with several people, like you, Rene, and Marty G., etc., about the above theory of TWC being a version of HFY (it explained the similarities). However, when I saw the demo and subsequently learned even more, I found that there were "features" of HFY that I hadn't expected -- the luk sao platform of chi sao (as Keith notes), how the HFY forms are identical to the TWC forms (which contain Yip signature movements and choreography), that HFY contains drills, like dan chi sao, that was created by Yip Man, etc. -- that refuted that theory. As HFY contains elements unique to Yip Man WCK, it can only be concluded that either all these elements were coincidentally developed independenntly by Yip (and the odds of that are astronomical) or that HFY adopted these elements. As Garrett denies that being the case (and would refute HFY's claims if they did), I'm left with the conclusion that HFY comes from TWC and not the other way round. TN

Moreover, as we know that Yip Man WCK contains aspects developed by other lineages (like Yuen Kay-San's luk sao), things developed by Yip Man in Hong Kong, like dan chi sao, and Yip's continual refinement of form choreography (like the huen sao to end each section, etc.), etc. and that TWC contains these elements, it follows that TWC is not some "older, secret lineage" but rather just another form of Yip Man WCK. Ergo, as HFY is an offshoot of TWC, and TWC a form of YMWCK, HFY is a form of YMWCK. TN

Terence

[Savi]

Terence,
How do you come to understand that Dan Chi Sau is even a 'Yip Man' invention? How do you know that the "Luk Sau Platform" is also a 'Yip Man' invention? How much do you know of HFY's Dan Chi Sau and its progressions? And since you are on the matter of Chi Sau, do you even understand what HFY Chi Sau is? Do you know how it came to be?

1) for one to understand where HFY's methods of Dan Chi Sau and Chi Sau originated, one must have an historical (background info as the foundation) and technical understanding of Kiu Sau (in purpose, nature, method, and development).

2) one must be clear that without the technical information or laboratories (experience from experiments) behind the subject under question, that speculation can only lead to speculation.

[tparkerkfo]

Hello Keith,

I have not seen that picture of Gee sifu and many others, but I will try to check it out. Garrett Gee was a friend of Chris Chan so I can see him being in the picture. But I am not sure if the Ken Chung from Leung Sheung lineage knows him or not. There is also a Ken Chung from Chris Chan's linage, which is who I suspect might be in the photo. I just want to point out that it might be a different person.

But yeah, it is interesting to note the ties to Yip Man wing chun.
Tom

[Ultimatewingchun]

...making another post on this thread after reading this latest one from Terence and being pleasantly surprised by the substance of it...

Very interesting stuff there, Terence - and if all the details you gave about what the various techniques and drlls, etc. were that Garrett Gee demonstrated, (which was more detailed than what Miquel Hernandez related to me)...

then I suspect that you really might be onto something about HFY and the Yip Man/William Cheung (TWC) connection...

but I still find it really hard to believe that Gee was taught by Cheung without William taking credit for it....

UNLESS THEY TRADED TECHNIQUES...?!

Which would explain where Gee got elements of Yip Man's (publicly taught) wing chun stuff...and where Cheung got his stuff that looks like HFY...?!

But this still raises more questions than it answers.....Like...

Where did the HFY/ TWC elements come from in the first place?

I still hold to my idea that it's a product of wing chun evolution that was (until very recently) always held very close to the vest....

and so the more historically distant traces of TWC/HFY (ie.- exact
names, places, and dates) are still a mystery!

And I still maintain that what I'm saying in this post may be all wrong...that in fact...it was Leung Bik who gave TWC to William Cheung...

and if this is true than there still remains the possibility that Leung Bik (or Leung Jan) secretly taught TWC to somone else who passed it down the line to Garret Gee...and since the father/son duo both knew TWC and "modified" (if my theory is correct)... then that's how Gee got elements of both systems.

The idea that Leung Bik broke "tradition" by teaching the "advanced secret material" (TWC) to someone other than a family member (Yip Man) ...the idea that this HAS to be discounted
because it goes against tradition...doesn't sit well with me since
there's always someone willing to "break the rules" somewhere
along the line...in every society...in every historical period...How do we know for sure what Leung Bik's motives were?

[Ultimatewingchun]

This last post should have read, at one point...
It was Leung Bik aho gave TWC to Yip Man, who gave it to William Cheung.

[reneritchie]

Keith,

No, I haven't seen the article, but it was told to me a while ago that Gee sifu hadn't met any of Yip Man's students aside from Chris Chan Shing sifu (when someone was trying to show how he couldn't have any Yip Man influence) so it would be strange to see him in a picture with Wong Shun-Leung sifu.

WRT Luk Sao, there are three possibilities: 1) Luk Sao was incorporated into a lineage where it didn't previously exist (like some SEA WCK have), 2) Yuen Kay-San, Yip Man, etc. learned it from an unknown third party, 3) There are 2 distinct training methods both called Luk Sao. It would be very difficult to "prove" which one is correct, especially 2 since no such 3rd party has ever been verified, and because Luk Sao is a logical "next step" to the Chi Sao that came before.

Likewise with Dan Chi Sao. Yip Man created a drill in HK that rotates a single arm between Tan, Bong, and Fook with specified choreography. Anything with 1 hand can be Dan Chi Sao, though, so we would first have to establish that HFY is doing the same drill, not just using the same term (if you also remember, at the VTM friendship seminar, Gee sifu said he adopted Yip Man terms in order to communicate with YM WCK people).

Terence,

I agree that the SNT shown at the VTM by both Marty (TWC) and Benny (HFY) looked *very* close in choreography, and where there were some differences, Marty was able to show versions of the TWC SNT that included much more similar choreography. However, in Rochester, Benny's SNT was a little more different, and in LA, a little more different still (though still broadly similar). I believe he explained this was due to his learning finer details in the set, and most of the differences seemed to be small details of a symbolic/hei gung nature. John, who was also a presenter at the 3 seminars, I believe commented on the same kind of closeness of the Chum Kiu and perhaps the 1st half of the dummy as well.


Savi,

You raise interesting points, but you are choosing to look at things from only one point of view and then further trying to exclude others. What you call "history" for Luk Sao is not history at all. It is an explination offered, a history proposed, but it is in no way verifiable (even if you find it very logical, or even the "best" explination). In the Foshan lineages, we have the advantage of several branches splitting over several timeframes in history, and by comparing and contrasting the arts referencing the times of their split, we can develop a *verifiable* model for what was developed and when, and we can sometimes see the steps along the way. This then is not a matter of opinion or what someone says or what makes sense to someone now, it is *repeatable* (anyone with resources can do the same work and come out with the same results).

BTW- In Ohio, I had the chance to briefly touch hands with Gee sifu. We didn't roll, but while we were waiting for our table at the restaurant, he asked to see my Luk Sao posture. We touched hands, and he was kind enough to comment that from his point of view, my elbows were closed too close to the center line. He maintained that in that position, I couldn't easily see a kick coming in. This gave me the idea that we were, in fact, working off different engines, with different strategies, and perhaps in rolling, I would have seen even more differences. So, instead of just repeating endless how everything in HFY is "different", perhaps, using your experience in Yip Man WCK as a base line reference, you could explain what exactly the mechanical differences are, and what differences in strategy those dictate. Then, perhaps Phil, Victor, Andrew and others could tell us whether there's similirities to TWC.

Victor,

I don't believe your posts are leading anyone to believe TWC is "superior", we're all (you included) simply allowing ourselves to be open to a greater range of possible explinations as to why it's *different*.

[marcelino31]

I just saw a picture of Garett Gee in Inside Kungfu on the wooden dummy.

The technique with left palm strike, right fook sao and right inverted side kick, which looks identical to the same movement as done in the first section of the TWC dummy set.

Also curiously, Garett is standing next to what appears to be a very small man who is noted as the Grandmaster of Hung Fa Yi.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi All,

I just saw the mag and I just wanted to correct an assumption I made above, not that anyone is holding their breath on it. LOL. The photo did include Kenneth Chung of Leung Sheung lineage, Chris Chan, Wong Sheung Leung, and I think Tsui Shueng Tin. I am not completely shure, but I think this event might be the one recorded on Planet wing chun website with a couple photos. I did not really look at the artical to see where it was taken, but if I recall correctly, Tsui Shun Tin, Wong Sheung Leung, visited a while ago. Some pictures can be seen at Planet Wing Chun. I never heard Garrett was there though, but obviously he is in the photo in the mag.

Any one on this list recall Garrett at that event?

As for the short guy in the photo with a VERY thin Garrett, that is the Monkey King Chan San Fung. No relation to Hung Fa Yi. The short guy looks shorter cause Garrett is rather tall, about 6 foot or so.

Tom

[William E]

Terrence wrote> Yes, everyone uses the phrase "WCK is a conceptual art" but so many reveal that they don't understand what that means with their subsequent statements. If we really understand that tan, using your example, is a concept, then it follows that there can be no one way or best way to use it. Same with everything else. TN

Typical Terrence ignorance. First of all, not EVERYONE uses that phrase or has that belief. From your perspective, this is your reality and what you believe. Fine. But not from mine or EVERYONE elses. Unless you actually have had any true experience and point of reference to speak from all of your comments are pure speculation. Unfortuantely they are typically written to reflect badly on the HFY family.

sleestack wrote>

These specific positions are merely a starting point for the beginner; a reference for what should eventually become a formless form. It should be this way with all positions. Even footwork. S

Terrence wrote>

Exactly! Many -- but not all -- WCK instructors use "techniques" to teach the art either because they never went beyond that level themselves or because they are using them as fingers pointing toward the moon -- the concepts behind the technique (and the concepts need a physical expression and the technique permits them to demonstrate the concept). Unfortunately, some don't realize that's what is going on and take it as "this is how it must be done"; that is "beginner's thinking" -- and while we all go through that phase -- if one doesn't get beyond that type of thinking they will forever be a beginner however long they've been practicing WCK. Ultimately, our expression of WCK should be formless and how we apply our WCK will depend on our individual skills (what we bring to the fight), our opponent's skill level and what he is doing, and the relationship between us. TN

LOL. Again, this is totally from your perspective which has no basis in HFY reality. You talk like you really know something which is funny. Your "art" may work against most people on the street but is mainly an illusion with no guarantees. I'd much rather rely on a system which contantly provides me with the reference points that allow me to express myself with the utmost efficiency.

William E.

[KPM]

Terrence wrote> Yes, everyone uses the phrase "WCK is a conceptual art" but so many reveal that they don't understand what that means with their subsequent statements. If we really understand that tan, using your example, is a concept, then it follows that there can be no one way or best way to use it. Same with everything else. TN

William responded:
Typical Terrence ignorance. First of all, not EVERYONE uses that phrase or has that belief. From your perspective, this is your reality and what you believe. Fine. But not from mine or EVERYONE elses. Unless you actually have had any true experience and point of reference to speak from all of your comments are pure speculation. Unfortuantely they are typically written to reflect badly on the HFY family.

----So HFY does not see WCK as a conceptual art?! That's interesting, since the main arguments here against its similarities to TWC or YMWCK all seem to take the form of "but you have to know the theories and concepts behind it to understand that it really is nothing like the others"! Your post seems to contradict what everyone else from the HFY family has been saying.

Keith

[KPM]

Savi wrote:
1) for one to understand where HFY's methods of Dan Chi Sau and Chi Sau originated, one must have an historical (background info as the foundation) and technical understanding of Kiu Sau (in purpose, nature, method, and development).

---One does not have to know any historical background or developmental theories behind a technique or method to recognize its similarities in action to something else. Just as we can look at the choreography of the forms and see distinct similarities, we can look at the the basic rolling within the Luk Sau structure and see similarities as well.

2) one must be clear that without the technical information or laboratories (experience from experiments) behind the subject under question, that speculation can only lead to speculation.

---Possibly. But knowing a snazzy story and in-depth theory about why something came to be won't necessarily dispel those speculations if they do nothing to answer why one thing is so similar in structure to something else. I think we are seeing a pattern here. Anytime similarities are pointed out between HFY and other WCK methods, the HFY family responds by saying in effect "but you must study the history and concepts behind HFY to understand that it really is nothing like these other methods." Many of the people currently studying HFY and posting here also have an extensive background in Moy Yat WCK. Just once I would like to see one of them outline all the similarities they see between HFY and YMWCK. Just once I would like to see one of them comment on similarities/differences in things like Luk Sao Chi Sau and Dan Chi Sau in the two methods. Just once I would like to see one of them that is also familiar with TWC outline the similarities/differences in the forms. Just once I would like to see one of them admit that there are things in the HFY story that can certainly seem very "fishy" to an outsider.

Keith

[KPM]

Hi Terence!

As you both may recall, I was there too . . . and I was very excited (as it was an unexpected bonus) about seeing Garrett Gee "publically unveil" HFY.

---Me too! That was one of the main reasons I attended the Friendship Seminar. You may also recall how much of a "downer" it was to discover that Meng Sifu's students had been given an "after-hours" "closed door" seminar on HFY that the rest of us were not informed about nor invited too.
Keith

[black and blue]

Geez, someone put an end to the thread.

1) Does HFY use the Dan Chi Sau 'Bong, Tan, Fook positional pattern' found in Yip Man Wing Chun?

2) Do we know for sure that this platform was designed by Yip Man?

3) If the answers to 1 and 2 are 'Yes', can someone from the HFY lineage explain how their system came to incorporate this form of Dan Chi Sau?

[KPM]

Hi Tom!

I just saw the mag and I just wanted to correct an assumption I made above, not that anyone is holding their breath on it. LOL. The photo did include Kenneth Chung of Leung Sheung lineage, Chris Chan, Wong Sheung Leung, and I think Tsui Shueng Tin. I am not completely shure, but I think this event might be the one recorded on Planet wing chun website with a couple photos.

---Yes, the photo appears to be from relatively recently and to have been taken at some sort of event. Don't know which. Each of the individuals noted were all in one photo.


As for the short guy in the photo with a VERY thin Garrett, that is the Monkey King Chan San Fung. No relation to Hung Fa Yi. The short guy looks shorter cause Garrett is rather tall, about 6 foot or so.

---Again, correct. This photo is of a much younger Garrett Gee. Nowhere in the article did it state or even imply that Chan San Fung was connected to HFY at all. That was a mistaken assumption on the part of the other poster. I checked on the VTM website, and they have the same photos posted. They also have a photo of Gee sifu with his Wu Tang teacher. But no photo with his HFY teacher or any of his sihings. So we have photos of Gee sifu with YMWCK people, with the "Monkey King", and with his other noted teacher but not with anybody connected to his HFY background. Still makes me go "Hmmmmmm...."

Keith

[t_niehoff]

WilliamE wrote:

Typical Terrence ignorance. First of all, not EVERYONE uses that phrase or has that belief. From your perspective, this is your reality and what you believe. Fine. But not from mine or EVERYONE elses. Unless you actually have had any true experience and point of reference to speak from all of your comments are pure speculation. Unfortuantely they are typically written to reflect badly on the HFY family. WE

Perhaps you will share your knowledge and tell us which lineage doesn't see WCK as a conceptual art? Since I've been fortunate enough to speak with and/or see excellent representatives of YKS, YM, Gu Lao, Cho Ga, etc. and they have all maintained WCK is a conceptual art, I'd like to know if HFY claims the distinction of not being a conceptual art. TN

LOL. Again, this is totally from your perspective which has no basis in HFY reality. You talk like you really know something which is funny. Your "art" may work against most people on the street but is mainly an illusion with no guarantees. I'd much rather rely on a system which contantly provides me with the reference points that allow me to express myself with the utmost efficiency. WE

The only "guarantee" in a fight is your personal level of skill -- period. A "system" doesn't fight for you, doesn't work by itself, doesn't express itself, etc. If you think HFY guarantees victory, I'll tell you what: I'll be happy to put up a $10,000.00 wager for a match of Garrett vs. Rickson if you guys put up an equal amount; the loser pays the winner (I think that I can talk Rickson into earning an easy ten grand). Or, I'll be happy to meet anyone in HFY that has an equal amount of time in HFY as I do poor old, watered-down WCK (22 years) -- I don't want any claims of "well, he has trained longer than so-and-so" after they lose miserably. ;) Then you can try and explain what went wrong. TN

Terence

[canglong]

I'll be happy to meet anyone in HFY that has an equal amount of time in HFY as I do poor old, watered-down WCK (22 years) TN

This is the sentence you use to try to save face.


I'll tell you what: I'll be happy to put up a $10,000.00 wager for a match of Garrett vs. Rickson if you guys put up an equal amount; the loser pays the winner (I think that I can talk Rickson into earning an easy ten grand). TN

This is the sentence where your discredit yourself, your sifu, your students and WCK. You talk WCK but you are thinking BJJ because you are wandering. Your words betray you no doubt your actions will as well.

[t_niehoff]

canglong wrote:

I'll be happy to meet anyone in HFY that has an equal amount of time in HFY as I do poor old, watered-down WCK (22 years) TN

This is the sentence you use to try to save face. C

No, it is simply pointing out that fighting ability has to do with one's personal level of skill, not their "system" and I suggested that folks of equal training meet (so no one side could claim that as an excuse -- you know, like the excuse of "they didn't punch right" ;) ). I offer to you HFY guys, or any WCK practitioner, a challenge: go to any gym that trains NHB fighters, like a Straighblast Gym, and ask to fight anyone whose been there 2 or 3 years (roughly the same amount of time most of you have been training) -- as they train fighters, not folks that just want to think they can fight -- they'll be more than happy to accomodate you. (I'll bet they'll even let you tape it so you can post it on the VTM website as an "endorsement" -- wouldn't that be nice?.). See how you compare. TN

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

I'll tell you what: I'll be happy to put up a $10,000.00 wager for a match of Garrett vs. Rickson if you guys put up an equal amount; the loser pays the winner (I think that I can talk Rickson into earning an easy ten grand). TN

This is the sentence where your discredit yourself, your sifu, your students and WCK. You talk WCK but you are thinking BJJ because you are wandering. Your words betray you no doubt your actions will as well. C

You miss the point. I chose Rickson -- and we could substitute any number of proven fighters -- because he is a great fighter and because skill has nothing whatsoever to do with lineage or style. William said, "Your "art" may work against most people on the street but is mainly an illusion with no guarantees" unlike HFY -- well, do you think Rickson's skill is an illusion? That it offers no guarantees? LOL! What guarantee does HFY offer you against Rickson -- other than you'll be choked out real fast? His skill is very real. So is mine, though not at anywhere near his level. I can admit that freely since it says nothing about my art, only me. TN

If you think it is your "system" offers you any guarantee of superiority, then it should be able to make easy work of a skilled, resisting fighter. If not, then what does it offer you -- except some misguided false confidence -- that makes you believe it is somehow "superior"? The truth of the matter is that all that counts is skill, one's individual understanding and ability, and that doesn't depend on lineage or style (as Rickson demonstrates) -- it depends solely on one's personal level of development. And that comes from *how* (intensity, resistance, etc.) one **trains** (not takes lessons) and their innate talent, drive, attitude, experience, intelligence, etc. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Duncan,

Luk Sao came from Yuen Kay-San & Yip Man (different people will give the nod to one coming up with it and showing the other).

To all,

Can we please settle down the bickering and stick to the topic(s) at hand? Clouding the issues with personality only cause them to linger.

Another point to consider, admittedly superficial, is the similarity not only between HFY and TWC SNT, CK, and the first half of the dummy (perhaps more) is the similarity in logos used by the two groups, both with the double knife background. While perhaps its coincidental, if unlikely, both groups independantly came up with very similar choreography, would the similarity in logos not reenforce the possibility there is some connection?

[black and blue]

Rene,

Thanks for the clarification. If YM and YKS put together the Luk Sau platform, is there any hint of what they used prior? Maybe the circular platform discussed on a previous thread?

Cheers,

Duncan

[reneritchie]

Duncan,

Yes, precisely, I think I posted the developmental process. From the huen/lim (circling) platforms, its pretty easy to see the small change that led to Luk Sao (which allows more elements to be trained simultaneous). Basically we went from both in or out, both up or down, to both in or out, one up the other down, to one in the other out, one up the other down. No "history" or "philosophy" needed when you can clearly point to the material at hand, examine the timing of the branch splits, and the presence of elements in one as opposed to the other.

And if you want to go back further, you can probably see quite easily how the rubbing/touching bridge arms of the systems extent at the time of WCK's development led to those earlier platforms, giving a pretty clear transition from two man-contact sets to Mo Kiu to Huen Sao to Lim Sao to Chi Sao.

[black and blue]

He tells them this because they don't answer the questions but make more unsupported statements.

I for one would love to hear the answers. In truth, the HFY threads are depressing. Lots of good questions are asked, people like me tune in because we'd like to learn more... and then no answers are given.... this goes on for 8 or 9 pages sometimes!!!

Lord.

The questions regarding Luk Sau and Dan Chi Sau are not even difficult questions to answer. They either have the same platform or they don't. And if they do have it, how hard can it be to explain how they came by it?

:rolleyes:

Rene,

Many thanks. I'd love to have been there when they were thrashing it out. "No look... we use inside and outside at the same time... get it... no... wait, if you change with the left hand that means I... errr... no... if...."

Well, that was my thinking when I started learning. LOL :D

[canglong]

"No, it is simply pointing out that fighting ability has to do with one's personal level of skill, not their "system"... TN

If you have 22 years of "personal level of skill" and your own name or your sifu's isn't the first to come to mind when you think of skill you might want to rethink your argument or find a new sifu.

"You miss the point. I chose Rickson"... TN

No, it is you that missed the point. The point is WCK not BJJ.

Rene, Care to share your understanding of the logos.

[black and blue]

A case in point.

C'mon canglong, move on from the WCK and BJJ and have a stab at the Luk Sau/Dan Chi Sau questions.

Having email notification for this forum was the worst move I ever made! LOL :)

[t_niehoff]

blackandblue wrote:

I for one would love to hear the answers. In truth, the HFY threads are depressing. Lots of good questions are asked, people like me tune in because we'd like to learn more... and then no answers are given.... this goes on for 8 or 9 pages sometimes!!!

Lord.

The questions regarding Luk Sau and Dan Chi Sau are not even difficult questions to answer. They either have the same platform or they don't. And if they do have it, how hard can it be to explain how they came by it?

There's no point asking questions of HFY people -- the answer will always be the same: because Garrett Gee says so. I saw Garrett do both luk sao and dan chi sao. We know that luk sao, as a chi sao platform, was created by YKS (Sum Nung was there, including when Yip Man trained with them) and is in no other lineages except those having a connection to YKS or YM. Dan chi sao, as several Yip seniors have noted, was created by YM (other lineages have differing single-hand platforms) in Hong Kong (his Foshan students didn't get it), and chi gerk as a training platform was created by Yip Man's students in HK (taking the dan chi platform and extending it to the legs). HFY has all these elements. Combine this with the fact that the HFY forms' choreography are almost replicas of TWC's forms, and the conclusion is obvious to everyone that isn't wearing blinders. You won't hear HFY explain it away since there is only one explanation -- the one they won't admit. Just like we won't hear them prove a lineage past Garrett Gee because they can't. TN

Terence

[reneritchie]

Duncan,

Yes, to have been a fly on *that* wall!

Tony,

What do you think of the similarities between the two logos? Also, are you familiar with the logo "Hung Suen" was using prior to the VTM becoming involved and the name HFY being used/made public?

BTW- You'll waste less bandwith by simply and efficiently using the classic Rickson troll retort: "Rickson by armbar".

Terence,

Your responses allow a continual dodge of the issues. IMHO, stay focused on the questions not being answered, not the tap dance trying to desguise the lack of answers.

Here's an analogy I heard on the weekend: When you point out problems, people get angry and try to make you the cause, because its easier on the ego than admitting them, and easier on the back than trying to fix them. This would be akin to someone going to the doctor and being told they're sick. It's initially easier to blame the doctor (who is only diagnosing what is already there), then to understand and go after the disease. This is the classical process of "denial" and "anger". Eventually, "acceptance" will come, but it likely won't be easy. Again, I'm interested to see how they'll post in 5 or 10 years, if they're still around. Lots of people post now very differently than they did 5 or 10 years ago...

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

You have left a bit of a paper trail on this thread since my post entitled "WHAT ABOUT THIS"... which suggests that you are at least "considering the possibility" that my theory that TWC is a natural "evolutionary development" in order to make the wing chun lineage that passes through Leung Jan a "better" fighting art than what it previously was.

For example, it was YOUR suggestion that perhaps it was Leung Bik who came up with the sidestepping footwork and the central line theory after losing his fight with Chan Wah Shun.

[reneritchie]

Victor,

What do you think about the similarities between the HFY and TWC logos? Do you know when William Cheung started using that logo? I imagine it was well before 1999?

BTW - Just because I don't believe in "better" doesn't mean I don't consider your, or any other theory interesting. Now if Leung Bik had pulled a Wang Lang (see Tanglangquan), that coulda been a neat movie! LOL!

Andrew, you know it! Rickson demans "aura". what about Bustamante? ;)

[black and blue]

.... HFY guys... so no one can answer the Dan Chi questions?

Anyone?











Anyone from the museum?












Any HFY people at all?

[tparkerkfo]

Grendel,

I obviously have some of the same concerns that you do about fake wing chun. I hope Gee is not trying to pull a fast one. That would not only be disrespectful, shameful, and the like to him and his organisation, but to people like me who do listen and invest our time in his stuff. Truely it makes little difference to me, except I hate to feel like a dupe/dope.

One thing I want to point out to you, I am not sure if Gee father is in the US. He may be, but I have never heard that. I was under the impression Gee himself taught at Chris's school. not his father. But I really don't know.

Am I too nice? I used to be, that was for sure. Now I am not as nice, but I am still respectful and currious. I assume people are telling me the truth. I try to only swallow the hook and avoid the line and sinker as much as I can. Had I been skeptical and overly critical towards others, I would have miss the chance to meet Ken, Hendrik, Rene, and many others. Some people in my travels have left less than potable tasts in my mouth, others have been fantastic. People misrepresenting themselves tend to hang them selves when given enough rope to spin their tales. I think it becomes evident after a while.

One thing I am interested in is who invited Gee sifu and why? If he is not wing chun, why would he be there if it is the event I think it is? YC Wong was there, so I suppose it was open to non Wing Chun people. I wonder if Ken or Ben are aware of his background. Maybe I'll ask next time I see them. I can maybe ask Eddie Chong if he knows him, or perhaps YC Wong.

Tom

[reneritchie]

IMHO, it is unproductive to insult, disrespect, or otherwise speak ill of HFY or Gee sifu. Not only is it poor Mo Duk, regardless of whether or not HFY people engage in it as well, but it allows others to divert attention away from the issues at hand, and pull the "victim" card.

Stick to the issues, repeat the questions.

Now, anyone have any idea why the HFY and TWC logos are so similar?

[dfl]

Originally posted by tparkerkfo

One thing I want to point out to you, I am not sure if Gee father is in the US. He may be, but I have never heard that. I was under the impression Gee himself taught at Chris's school. not his father. But I really don't know.
Tom

Tom,

I don't know any of the other details but I do know that GG's father did (does?) teach in the SF area. I have a friend who studied from him. And I saw his other son do a bagua demo on stage once (with YC Wong, Adam Hsu, et al). Incidentally GG was also there doing some bagua application. His father studied from a student of Fu Zhen Song, so he teaches taiji and bagua.

The following is not aimed at you, Tom.

Most of us (who are students) are happy where we are learning from whoever we learn from, and don't appreciate our teacher's name dragged into these discussions gratuitously. I know it's impossible to convince some people not to do it, but for those of us who are semi-rational, could we stop doing that, please, and just keep the "discussion" to individual experience and attacks on individuals instead of dragging the teacher (who's often uninformed of the happenings in the ether) and the whole style into it?

I can't speak for others, but I do have an interest in seeing other people's WC, not that I want to steal from them, or beat them up, or anything, but by virtue of being a WC student, I am interested in the subject, in all its manifestations. That's why I try to meet people from other lineages and touch their hands whenever possible. I do admit to having a prurient interest in finding out about "history" and other gossip, not unlike peeking at the National Enquirer at the supermarket checkout line, but I don't take what I read seriously enough to believe in alien abductions, though the idea seems to make enjoyable movies (e.g. Independence Day).

Here's what one prominent scientist thinks about science and pseudo-science:
http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html
I happened to be there when this address was given, so I heard it first hand.

[tparkerkfo]

Hello Levi,

Thanks for pointing that out. Of course that becomes the focus of future discussion, not the rest of the post. Taken out of context it is indeed as you suggest. My point was that I stood there and let Benny criticize all the problems with my Tan Sau. He enjoyed playing sifu and showing me every problem with my Tan Sau. And you know what, I listened to him. Every word. I think there was some merit in what he said. But did he try to listen to me. Nope. This was at a frendship meeting. Not a sifu student meeting. Not a class thing or seminar. A friendship. My point was, if Benny honsetly thought that, then he doesn't know wing chun at all. To suggest that Leung Sheung's lower tan sau is incorrect and wrong, is just plain ignorance. but this discussion was not about Benny. It was about people attacking my lineage as people are attacking HFY. I get called on my comments and people question my motives and support. But I get the same treatment from them. I brought in this example of Benny becuase it parallells what is discussed here. I don't have an axe to grind with Benny at all. He is his own person and I don't really care. Please take the comment as intended within the context of what I am saying and not as a personal attack. It is not.

William, That was an honest question. YC Wong is a legend in SF and is very tied to the Wing Chun community. I can see why he is there. He doesn't and never has hidden his martial skills. All the other people that I knew to be in attendance were wing chun people who are well respected and publically acknowledged in wing chun circles. I am not suggesting Gee sifu should not be there at all, nor am I attacking him. I am currious why a non wing chun person that was not a well known martial artist would be connected to this event. It might help explain things. If WSL or TST recognized his skills in HFY, then I would suggest you guys have an argument. I am not in favor one way or the other in substantiating or damaging HFY. I am just trying to bring out some stuff. But your comments makes it sound like anyone could have went. Personaly, I would have liked the idea of a special wing chun only invite. LOL.

I can see I am going to get flack because I am critically thinking here rather than drinking the punch as some one mentioned some where.

[tparkerkfo]

Hello DFL,

Thanks for your rational words and though you say they are not directed at me, I feel they do apply atleast in part. I think your points are very valid and probably the most sobering. Teachers should be left out. I dragged in a few names trying to make points, but those poinst should be able to stand on there own. As I have said before, Gee Sifu is a fine man from my experiences and I wish no ill will or disrespect. My issues are with members of this list and many of the incorrect statments made.

I was not aware of where Gee sifus father's location, as I said. I assumed it was in China but was not sure. Gee spoke of him and placed him in China, so that was my reference. As usual, one only has a part of the story in most cases. Thank you for clearing this up for me

One of the things I use to defend Gee sifu is his father. I know father son relationship doesn't make one a good student and a good martial artist. Though I do think Gee would have had some skills. Why make up a system within wing chun if your father was well resected for his martial arts skills? It makes no sense to me. I think that lends some credence.

Tom

[Grendel]

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
As I have said before, Gee Sifu is a fine man from my experiences and I wish no ill will or disrespect. My issues are with members of this list and many of the incorrect statments made.

Tom, if it cannot be proven that HFY is legitimate, does that change your opinion of Garrett Gee? Should that matter, do you think?


I was not aware of where Gee sifus father's location, as I said. I assumed it was in China but was not sure. Gee spoke of him and placed him in China, so that was my reference. As usual, one only has a part of the story in most cases. Thank you for clearing this up for me

I was the one who asked the question of the HFY boys. I find it telling that they did not know. Rather than giving credibility, this suggests the opposite.


One of the things I use to defend Gee sifu is his father.

His father is a well-known and respected Taiji teacher. It is unfortunate if his son's actions reflect badly on him, but the first rule of Wing Chun is that a teacher should show the truth.

Where have I seen the following before? :p

The Cantonese expression Mm Yan Chi Dai, translates to Misleading other people's children.

The idiom is a reference to those teachers who claim an expertise in an art that they do not have and waste the time and treasure of others.

Regards,

[Grendel]

Originally posted by Train
Grendal: I have not attacked them, have I?
Grendal: It is unfortunate if his son's actions reflect badly on him...
Grendal: The Cantonese expression Mm Yan Chi Dai, translates to Misleading other people's children.

Have you attacked them?? Hmmmmm..... lets see....... Hell ****en yeah!!!!

Hi Train,

You must be thinking of someone else. :rolleyes: The HFY poster boys are fond of asking leading questions, but you don't seem to have any answers. Why is that? Do you not study? Has no one given you the answers?


Please Grendal, have you ever met Sifu Garret Gee?? Have you ever met any of the students?? You not only insulted Sifu Gee, you also insult the VTM and Sifu Eddie Chong.

I have never insulted either one, especially Eddie who is an exceptionally good teacher. Don't drag others into your problems.

I seek facts.

Don't get so emotional. Stay calm. Breathe.

There, isn't that better?


Where are you located?? why Don't you spend a little of you time, instead of insulting, to go to HFY head quarters in SF and ask questions your self??

The HFY has intruded itself on an already fractious Wing Chun community. However, it causes problems because of its claims and misstatements. Instead of urging me to investigate HFY---I have---you should do some investigating yourself.


But i know you would not have an open mind to do that. But to tell you the truth, after you made all those comments, I personally would not be nice to you but....

You and I do not have a real disagreement. Go and seek answers.


but if you have an open mind still, i know if you go to the HFY head quarters they will still treet you with respect and Mo duk......
I would hope so. I am merely seeking the truth. Give me and others questioners answers, which I understand that you personally do not have, and I will drop the matter gladly. But, do you think Garrett Gee and HFY can expect respect when they do not and likely cannot explain the problems with their claims?

Regards,

[taltos]

Originally posted by t_niehoff
If someone beats me, it means their personal skill is better than mine, and that's all; it says nothing about our lineages. But HFY seems to propoound, as William did, that while my "'art' may work against most people on the street but is mainly an illusion with no guarantees" then I want to see proof of these guarantees HFY apparently offers.

Terence

Here is an example of why we're having such trouble having a rational discussion. It's cleary stated here that skill is just skill and does not reflect lineage, yet a person (with a set level of SKILL) will somehow be able to represent HFY and prove it. If it's already been decided that skill exists external to lineage, then it will prove nothing either way. If it can prove nothing because the questions/challenges are framed in such a manner as to be unanswerable, why bother? That not efficient, and not worth it.

I have stated in the past that it seems that when anyone else discusseds their WC, it's understood that it's just them, just their understanding, just their perspective. But whenever anyone who practices HFY gives their take on anything, thats the rubber stamp official HFY response. Maybe if when people said that they understand that an HFY practicioners opinion is the opinion/perspective of THEM and not HFY as a complete whole, these misunderstandings wouldn't arise.

I have yet to see an official HFY press release that states anyn of the things that people here have said HFY says. If an HFY guy says it, then that's what they think. That's it and that's all.

Very few (if any) people on this forum represent an entire lineage in an official capacity. Why is it that everytime a HFY guy opens their mouth, it's assumed they're reading from the cue card as an official elected PR person?

-Levi

[taltos]

Originally posted by black and blue
1) Does HFY use the Dan Chi Sau 'Bong, Tan, Fook positional pattern' found in Yip Man Wing Chun?


Hi there b&b...

1. Within the progressions of HFY Daan Chi Sau, Taan, Bong, and Fuhk are used, along with other hands as well. I have hear it stated in other lineages that Taan, Bong, and Fuhk are the "three pillars" of WC, so it would make sense to use those pillars in a training set.

Hope that helps.

-Levi

[taltos]

Originally posted by Grendel
Give me and others questioners answers, which I understand that you personally do not have, and I will drop the matter gladly.

How can he give you the answers if you already know that he does not have them? If you are asking an unanswerable question, then there's no need for him to answer. If you are truly wanting to know, then wouldn't it be better to send an email or make a call or pay a visit to the HFY Kwoon in SF and get your answers straight from Gee Sifu? Anything else is like asking a friend to learn something and then copme teach it to you when you could ask yourself and cut out the middle man.

If you want the official HFY answer, ask the HFY inheritor.


Originally posted by Grendel
do you think Garrett Gee and HFY can expect respect

I don't ever recall Gee Sifu, or any person studying HFY, posting here that they EXPECTED anything from anyone. He has what he has, and if you're interested, he's willing to talk to you. If you're not, so be it. Many people have posted here that they met Gee Sifu and words like "respectful" and "generous," and "fine man" have been used to describe him. So why drag him into a discussion he has not participated in? If you'd like him involved in your discussion, ASK HIM. Don't yell out your window and expect an answer.

-Levi

[Savi]

4 pages have past since I last read the thread. Please forgive my absence. I would like to address many questions, comments, claims, and insults but rather I have decided to say this:

Public discussion of Grandmaster Gee's background, experience and thoughts have no place here being that he himself is not here to address them. Regardless if a HFY family member addresses a question or claim regarding the subject, or anybody else about his life, their comments do not represent truth unless Grandmaster Gee has explicitly given authority to an individual or party to represent him. As such, any discussion here is ONLY speculation and nothing more. To what end does the discussion on GM Gee's life does it serve? Is it any of our business at all? I give this a resounding no.

The aspect of the thread involving Dan Chi Sau, and Hung Fa Yi in general, I would like to address in a seperate thread, which I am preparing currently. Diplomatic discussions I would like to encourage for this only please.

Hung Fa Yi logo information can be found here:
http://www.mengsofaz.com/currentarticles/HFY%20Visual%20Reality.htm
Whatever similarities may exist between the HFY and TWC logos I cannot speak for, but for those who are not familiar with the SNT behind the HFY logo, the link has been provided as assistance.

[taltos]

Originally posted by tparkerkfo
Taken out of context it is indeed as you suggest.

I don't believe I took anything out of context. I asked if there was some positive, constructive thing you were trying to say by stating that my Sigung was full of crap. That's all. Was there?


Originally posted by tparkerkfo
He enjoyed playing sifu and showing me every problem with my Tan Sau.

Since I wasn't there, anything I say is just based on my experience with him, both before and after his HFY experiences. Maybe he was showing you how HFY looks at things. Maybe he was sharing just his point of view. Maybe he was answering a question.


Originally posted by tparkerkfo
I think there was some merit in what he said.

Then why do you think he is "full of crap?"


Originally posted by tparkerkfo
My point was, if Benny honsetly thought that, then he doesn't know wing chun at all.

So am I mistaken (I am open to other alternatives), or are these the only conclusions I can make from your statement...

1. My Sigung did not honestly thinks that, so he knows wing chun but he is a liar.

2. My Sigung honestly thinks that, so he does not know wing chun.

In either case, you are making a statement about the integrity of my Sigung, and I find this offensive and uncalled for.


Originally posted by tparkerkfo
I get called on my comments and people question my motives and support.

As you should. As we all should. But I don't ever recall anyone stating that you represent your lineage, and any inability of yours to communicate is a direct reflection of your lineage. If everyone were held accountable individually, a lot of these problems would vanish.


Originally posted by tparkerkfo
I can see I am going to get flack because I am critically thinking here rather than drinking the punch as some one mentioned some where.

I don't think anyone is riled up by what you are trying to say. It's how you chose to say it. As to the "punch" comments (thinly veiled cult references), I'm free to come and go as I please. I could chose to stop studying HFY without experiencing any reprocussions from my Sigung, etc. But I like what I am getting, and I see true wisdom and strength in it, so I am staying put. My path is clear, and I my eyes are open.


Originally posted by tparkerkfo
I don't have an axe to grind with Benny at all. He is his own person and I don't really care. Please take the comment as intended within the context of what I am saying and not as a personal attack. It is not.

I'll go ahead and take your word for it. I am also not trying to attack anyone, I am trying to point out how it is extremely easy to type away and not really think about how your words could be interpreted.

I'm sure that in the future our discussions will be much more pleasant, and I look forward to that.

-Levi

[Wingman]

Hi Savi,

I was reading the Hung Fa Yi Logo information (http://www.mengsofaz.com/currentarticles/HFY%20Visual%20Reality.htm) in your previous post. A couple of sentences below caught my attention.


Wing Chun, originally written in Cantonese as “Everlasting Spring” to reflect the revolutionary’s desire that the Mihng Dynasty would last forever, was changed to read “Praising Spring” by the addition of one character after the fall of the Southern Shaolin Temple. It denotes that the revolution against the Qing Dynasty would be carried on by word of mouth, thus “Praising” in lieu of “Everlasting”.

Does this mean that the WCK whose Chinese characters mean "Everlasting Spring" pre-dated or is older than the WCK whose Chinese characters mean "Praising Spring"? I'm just curious because the WCK that I practice means "Everlasting Spring" instead of "Praise Spring".:)

[black and blue]

Many thanks for the response.

I understand you would use Bong, Tan and Fook (as you said, the three pillars), but what I meant was do you use them in the basic Yip Man Dan Chi Sau sequence?

a) Tan - Palm - Bong - Tan
b) Fook - Jut - Punch - Fook


Duncan

[Train]

hi Duncan,

They do not have the same sequence. I'm not speaking for them but i know a couple of people that's studies it and it's different.

I study YM version and i have to say that not all YM Lineages does the same thing either.

[black and blue]

Many thanks. That's what I wanted to know... that HFY has a single stick exercise but that it is not in anyway connected to Yip Man Wing Chun. This is what you're saying, yes?

This at least goes a little way towards refuting the notion that HFY is simply a re-packaged form of YM Wing Chun.

Now, if Terence would like to describe some of the things he says are Yip Man's signature movements in the forms, perhaps HFY exponents could address:

1) Does HFY have these signature moves in their SNT, CK, BT?
2) If so, how did they come to be incorporated?


Maybe the puzzle can be solved after all. :)

[Mckind13]

Well

Hello all.

I hope everyone is well!

I hope everyone's sifu's and sihings are well!

I am glad we are all getting along well!

With that said, as educated people (?) one would hope that we could avoid reverting to insults and threats.

Two wrongs after all seldom make a right. In fact it is a fallacy to try and discredit any argument by association with any group, political agenda or marketing campaign.

If for instance, I am forced to attack a person or group based on affiliation or past behavior in order to discredit an argument or statement, then this shows a really poor set of beliefs and understanding in my side of the discussion.

I have seen some very good questions posed and none answered well, with the exceptions of some of Rene, Jim, and Victors posts. (This includes others involved in that part of the thread :P)

I would hope that we could all refrain from attacking people baselessly and in an effort to draw attention away from the issues being discussed.

As a defense mechanism some people like to fall back on attacking others Sifu vs. addressing the topic.

Discussion of history and where Sifu Gee or William Cheung got their Kung Fu from is in no way a personal attack. Why not address these questions. Bringing in Sifu Chu, the wandering knight ideal, and whatever else you feel compelled to bring up in place of sound arguments is silly and demeaning to the art as a whole.

Hold yourself up to a higher standard if you can. If not ask yourself WWBD (what would Buda do).

Thanks and good morning!


:o

[t_niehoff]

blackandblue wrote:

Many thanks. That's what I wanted to know... that HFY has a single stick exercise but that it is not in anyway connected to Yip Man Wing Chun. This is what you're saying, yes? BB

As I said before, I saw GG doing HFY's dan chi sao, and it was the same platform as YM. Now, they say that their luk sao, just like their tan sao, may "look" the same, but it is different . . . well, they may have a different emphasis (differing lineages of YMWCK do too) but that doesn't make it a different drill. The choreography of the drill remains the same. TN

This at least goes a little way towards refuting the notion that HFY is simply a re-packaged form of YM Wing Chun. BB

Not at all. HFY will say its forms are different from TWC because there are minor variations and their "focus" is different . . . but choreography tells. TN

Now, if Terence would like to describe some of the things he says are Yip Man's signature movements in the forms, perhaps HFY exponents could address:

1) Does HFY have these signature moves in their SNT, CK, BT?
2) If so, how did they come to be incorporated?

Just compare the TWC forms with the HFY forms side-by-side and they appear almost identical. Take the dummy form -- no two lineages have anywhere near the same dummy form; even different YM students have dummy forms that have somewhat differing choreography (although you can see the common links). TWC dummy choreography basically follows TST's, one of YM's senior HK students, dummy (compare them side-by-side) but has been TWC-ized, changing to Cheung's footwork, or adding Cheung's "hopping entry" (which HFY adopts). Signature moves? One is the huen sao to end each section -- we see it only in lineages descending from Ng Chung So (Yip's sihing who took over his training when CWC died -- see Yip's own recorded history); other lineages do the "older" lop sao. There are many other things too -- if you see the "older lineages" of WCK, they all share certain things in common, and you'll see YM modified some of these things and that those modifications show up in HFY. TN

Terence

[black and blue]

As I said before, I saw GG doing HFY's dan chi sao, and it was the same platform as YM. Now, they say that their luk sao, just like their tan sao, may "look" the same, but it is different . . . well, they may have a different emphasis (differing lineages of YMWCK do too) but that doesn't make it a different drill. The choreography of the drill remains the same.


Okay. Perhaps someone from HFY Wing Chun could talk us through their version of Dan Chi Sau.

What pattern/sequence does it follow?
What is the emphasis?
How do you guys feel it is different from YM Wing Chun?



With regards the forms...


Do you indeed have Huen Sau at the end of each section?
If so, where does this come from?



You know, if you answer the questions, these threads could limit themselves to a mere 4 or 5 pages! :)
Levi, you sound like an amiable fella... lets hear your perspective on these issues.

Thanks

Duncan

[reneritchie]

Hi Richard,

Nice of you to join us. Perhaps you're here to quickly, and simply answer the questions posed previously and help set a great example to end the petty bickering?

"Pretty slick Rene...."

I may be pretty, but I'm hardly slick. LOL! Or was Slick another 80s reference?

"Your first sentence implies that you disapprove of insults, but your second sentence veils one...."

Actually, if you read it, the first sentence implies I disapprove of insults, and the second shows that I believe *all sides* are guilty of falling into the trap. Remember, before we can change, we must take responsibility.

"no where in this thread did a HFY person insult someone"

Perhaps you would like to actually read the thread first?

"yet your sentence implies that they too engage in this behavior...."

They do. We all do, from time to time. We're human. Again, personal responsibility.

" this isn't the first time you have let your 'slip show'...."

LOL! I love the buzzwords you guys come up with.

" there is no doubt in my mind that you have the same hidden agenda"

It would perhaps be better if you refrained from trying to derail the discussion with personal attacks. It sets a poor example. My agenda, quite unhidden, is for WCK, and the bond of the family, which, in many opinions, from many people, in many different lineages, countries, and experience levels, is something being deliberately underminded by the current marketing campaign of the VTM.

Let's put this in perspective. Remember "New Coke"? Now, imagine Coke had refused to listen to consummers who overwhelming told them they didn't like New Coke and wouldn't buy it. Imagine Coke was proud of their past association with top selling Coca Cola and instead released a string of adds insulting consumers, telling them they didn't understand, weren't qualified, couldn't grasp the New Coke formula, and then started personally attacking them. Coca Cola likely wouldn't have survived.

Perhaps my hidden agenda is to help the HFY folks. If I didn't want to do that, I could just keep my mouth shut, and watch. But I'm hoping somehow, this sinks in, and you do take a hard, honest look at the failure of your currect strategy, and realize that not with chest-pounding or bullying will a new lineage gain acceptance, but with humility, sharing, and non-elitist friendship.

" as the rest of these trolls from the Robert Chu band of "Wandering Knights"..... "

LOL! Playground at its best. Please. Insulting my friends? What's next? My mother? My town? My wardrobe? First, Robert Chu has nothing to do with this issue, other than were it not for him, you and your sifu would likely not have even heard of HFY, or not as soon as you did at any rate. Second, most of the people you're lumping in as a "band" have no affiliation whatsoever with Chu sifu (some are much less than fond of him). Third, Wuxia is a proud Chinese tradition, or didn't you like Crouching Tiger? 8P

"Pick a time and place..... I'll be most happy to come "play" with any of your knights...."

LOL! You really are stuck in the playground? Want everyone's milk money? ROFLOL! My "knights" LMAO!

"Hell, I've got a whole army here that would love to come play!!"

That's, IMHO, part of the problem. You don't have an army. You have students. Students need *good* role models. They are a responsibility. Any idiot can have an army. Fanatics have armies. Terrorists have armies. Despots and dictators have armies.

Perhaps its not my "slip" that's showing.

Thank you for posting, Richard. I'd hoped you'd set a good example for the discussion, help answer questions, bridge gaps, and mend fences. Instead, I think this bad example will help show the real "hidden agenda" and will help wake up some of your students. It probably won't be immediate, but all the questions will bounce in their heads. They'll notice the little things, see the way you treat people, and while their loyalty will get them to justify it initially, I'm betting over the next 5-10 years, it should be *real* interesting...

Savi,

Thank you very much for the link. Do you remember my post on the fraudulent Karate teacher I used to learn from? He had a logo, and for my brown belt grading, my written assignment was to study the symbolism of the logo. I bought some books on Asian symbolism, did a whole lot of research, and brought back several pages exampling different numerology, color, and pattern. The teacher liked it, said I'd gotten "most of it" right. Then he posted it up for everyone as his own, so they could know the symbolism of the logo it turned out he'd taken from some other fraudulent Karate teacher.

My point, with that story, is to show that everything has a meaning and that any semi-intelligent person with the right resources could write an exposition on them. Unfortunately, that doesn't help date the origins of a thing, locate those origins, or explain why the thing may look so much like someone elses thing with whom it is claimed no connection exists.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Rene:

Have never seen (or noticed) the HFY logo...
William Cheung has been using the TWC logo from at least 1983
(which is when I first met him).

Since everyone's talking about it then I've got to assume that there are major similarities. What do I think about it?

Either:

A) There is an historical lineage connection between the two men and the two systems, even if they don't actually know each other. Again I'll reiterate that there's always the possibility that Leung Bik (or Leung Jan) taught TWC to people we don't even suspect or know about (besides Yip Man).

B) Garrett Gee stole the idea from William Cheung, along with a lot of other things.

C) William Cheung is the thief. (Not likely since he's using the logo and the TWC system at least 15 years or so before Gee showed up).

D) They traded techniques and ideas about logos a long time ago.

Take your pick!

My guess is...... A.

[sel]

3 points about TWC

1. they teach you to watch the elbows and knees of your opponent.
2. they teach you the "entry technique" where you should start from about 1.5 metres away.
3. they teach you fook sau should be pointing down towards your opposite foot because thats how dog's do it when they fight.

i think these 3 points alone illustrate the quality of what is taught by TWC. there is no need to go into all the history heresay. the teachings speak for themselves.

woof woof.

[R Loewenhagen]

Originally posted by black and blue



Okay. Perhaps someone from HFY Wing Chun could talk us through their version of Dan Chi Sau.

What pattern/sequence does it follow?
What is the emphasis?
How do you guys feel it is different from YM Wing Chun?



With regards the forms...


Do you indeed have Huen Sau at the end of each section?
If so, where does this come from?

Duncan

Duncan,

These are valid questions and I'll try to answer them succinctly.
In the YM system, Daan Chi Sau seriously introduces the student to modern Wing Chun's three pillars (Tan, Bong, Fook), It is a single-stage, directional exercise that teaches the nature of the pillars in a 2-dimensional fashion (facing one another and focusing on energies up and down and front and back). At this stage, it is similar to HFY Daan Chi Sau. Notice that I said 'similar'. They are not exactly the same. HFY Daan Chi Sau has two added motions at this first stage that simply are not trained in Daan Chi Sau in modern expressions. They are an upper gate Gahn Sau and a lower gate Chuen Gum Sau. To the untrained eye they appear similar, but when you touch hands, the energies are much more complex in the HFY expression of this stage of the exercise.

Upon completion of this stage of Daan Chi Sau, the YM player proceeds to simple two-handed rolling (in some schools called "Poon Sau"). This is not the case for HFY Daan Chi Sau. There are many more stages of training in HFY Daan Chi Sau. The second stage teaches how to deal with sideways energies and forces in Daan Chi Sau. Specifically, running and catching hands are trained here with an emphasis at all times on challenging the partner's elbow energy and structure. This type of training in YM is usually reserved for the advanced Look Sau stage (called Jow Sau / Jip Sau training).

HFY's third stage of Daan Chi Sau begins to train the hands to dimensional use as well as directional. This stage is much more complex than YM Daan Chi Sau. HFY's fourth stage of Daan Chi Sau is a skill challenge stage. Here all of the motions from the above three stages are challenged at any and all points of travel. Energetics are trained to a very high degree of precision and liveliness. There are very specific responses to each and every spatial and temporal distortion. Likewise, there are very specific recoveries trained.

The closest parallel I can find in YM Daan Chi Sau to this skill challnege stage in HFY is what we in the YM schools call 'Freehand Daan Chi Sau'. However, freehand Daan Chi Sau is unstructured in that it does not spell out spatial and temporal distortions. Therefore, responses to challenges are dependent solely on the success of one's energetics and livelines - both important, but irrelevent if one's partner also has good energetics and has trained optimally efficient responses to our spatial and temporal distortions.

Following this complex layer of training, there are several more stages of cross-hand Dan Chi Sau training. Upon completion of HFY Kiu Sau (no parallel in YM... In HFY a very in-depth Bridge Arm training program), Chi Sau (a much more complex series of Bridge Hand training stages than YM), and SNT footwork, a HFY practitioner can, literally, fight with a single hand.

As for the Huen Sau in the forms.... Yes, HFY makes extensive use of Huen Sau, but there are many more details to the Huen and inumerable applications. There Huens that clear a single gate and there are Huens that clear multiple gates. All depend intricately upon strategy, space, time, energy... all resulting in the proper application. An argument can be made that we consider position, distance and energy in YM as well when employing Huen and that argument would be correct. However, HFY's space, time, and energy employement is much more detailed in its knwoledge and precision than mere distance awareness and timing.

For your info, I have trained the YM system quite thoroughly and have a sincere appreciation for it. But my background gives me suffcient knowledge of both systems now to readily state that they are not the same beast at all. I liken the YM system to a modern expression of some of the principles and concepts found in HFY that is a very good approximation of space and time control in a directional manner without full knowledge that said control is actually being exercised.

HFY has many principles and concepts that simply don't exist in the modern expression. And HFY practitioners are not taught 'expression'. They are taught a very precise science and learn to distinguish very early in their training between science and their own personal expression.

Best Regards,

Richard

[Sandman2[Wing Chun]]

All,
Sorry about the slow response to this thread, I went out of town for a couple of days, and everything had been going so well on here I thought it would be ok for just a short period. My mistake. Anyway, I'm closing this thread while I go through and review all the postings, it will be reopened once that has been done.