Who met Leung Bik?

[planetwc]

Anyone know who met Leung Bik in Hong Kong other than Yip Man?

And more importantly, what year was it that they met him?

[WCis4me]

Good question.
Only thing I have been able to find on that...... is someone named Lai who was supposedly a friend of Yip Man in St. Stephen's. Apparently it was Lai's father who owned the silk factory where Leung Bik (apparently was in his 50's at the time) worked. So I would guess somewhere between 1909 (if you go by the story that Yip Man was 16 when he started attending St. Stephen's and that he was born in 1893 as his sons say on their sites) and not too sure when Yip Man was said to have left St. Stephen's maybe 19 years old so that would be 1912?

I am guessing as I haven't heard or found anything other than that so far.

NTC mentioned about hearing some of Yip Man's students talking about meeting Leung Bik, but it was quite some time ago and was going to get some clarification on it.

Regards,
Vicky

[reneritchie]

Yip Man might have been born in 1899. There seems to be some disagreement about the exact date, and it varied a bit among his students articles until Yip Chun published 1893, but strangely many from other branches pegged it at 1899, and all the people who were supposedly the exact same age as Yip Man (Lai Hip-Chi, Cheung Bo, and a couple others) were born in 1899.

Not sure it matters much, but could push his time at St. Stephen's back up to 6 years.

[reneritchie]

BTW- I think Augustine Fong's site has a story about Leung Bik teaching his daughter and/or son and law as well.

[yuanfen]

The story has it that Leung Bik's daughter in law was very good in kicking and was a better kicker than the young Ip man.


We keep trying to impose contemporary biography analysis
with respect to Ip Man. Frankly, I find it amusing. We accept the
awesome nature of Ip man's wing chun- his thoughts and statements about the motions and forms- but we think that we know better as to who Ip man learned from than Ip Man himself.

[reneritchie]

Hey Joy,

If we look at it without bias, we have no idea what Yip Man said, as some of his students maintain one thing (ie. William Cheung) and others maintain another (ie. Wang Kiu), since as you yourself have said many times, the principals are long gone, we cannot know for certain what, if anything Yip Man said, so no one is pretending to know better than Yip Man, just trying to figure out the inconsistent reports.

[WCis4me]

Originally posted by reneritchie
BTW- I think Augustine Fong's site has a story about Leung Bik teaching his daughter and/or son and law as well.
Yes you are right, I used a quote from it in one of my other posts.

[WCis4me]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Yip Man might have been born in 1899. There seems to be some disagreement about the exact date, and it varied a bit among his students articles until Yip Chun published 1893, but strangely many from other branches pegged it at 1899, and all the people who were supposedly the exact same age as Yip Man (Lai Hip-Chi, Cheung Bo, and a couple others) were born in 1899.

Not sure it matters much, but could push his time at St. Stephen's back up to 6 years.

Yeah, there are discrepencies, and I think it does matter when we are trying to pin down a time period, don't you, lol. Makes it that much harder to figure out if it is even possible to figure it out.

Vicky

[WCis4me]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Hey Joy,

If we look at it without bias, we have no idea what Yip Man said, as some of his students maintain one thing (ie. William Cheung) and others maintain another (ie. Wang Kiu), since as you yourself have said many times, the principals are long gone, we cannot know for certain what, if anything Yip Man said, so no one is pretending to know better than Yip Man, just trying to figure out the inconsistent reports.
I agree.

BTW anyone heard from NTC lately?

Vicky

[Tom Kagan]

If I told you my Sifu met him several times between 1963-1967, would you believe me?

If I told you my Sifu and my SiBak, Ip Ching, helped bury him in 1968, would you believe me?

If I told you my Sifu and my SiBak, Ip Ching, took me to his grave to pay our respects in 1997, would you believe me?

If I told you that Leung Bik was the man's nickname and not his real name, would you believe me?

If I told you he was a student of Fong Wah and not Leung Jan's son, would you believe me?

And, if I told you that Yip Man really learned his skill from his SiHings, SiDai, ToDai, SiBaks, SiSuks, SiJats, etc., and mostly from within himself through sheer force of will, then gave the credit to his Sifu because he would have never met any of them if not for his Sifu, would you believe me?

:eek:

[reneritchie]

No I wouldn't, Tom, because I heard Leung Bik was still alive and well in China, 75 years old, and still taking his bird to the park every day. Perhaps you and your sifu and Yip Ching met him in New York when he was there giving his seminar in 1997? :p

[WCis4me]

not to mention all those accounts, including yip chings account, of him being an old man (some say in his 50's) when Yip Man attended St. Stephen's and met him in the early 1900's. Around 1910 according to Yip Ching's account as told by Ron Heimberger.

Vicky

[reneritchie]

Vicki,

These folks in NYC claim those were all lies made up because Yip Man was much younger than Leung Bik and was ashamed to admit learning from a kid.

(BTW- I don't happen to find this very credible, but it is a great example of "sifu sez")

[WCis4me]

Originally posted by reneritchie
Vicki,

These folks in NYC claim those were all lies made up because Yip Man was much younger than Leung Bik and was ashamed to admit learning from a kid.

(BTW- I don't happen to find this very credible, but it is a great example of "sifu sez")
Rene,

Have you come across anything showing that the seminar took place? I mean we have a lot of avid WC people from NYC on here. 1997 wasn't that long ago, someone must have heard or seen something about it. My guess is if Leung Bik, the one that we are talking about, (maybe it was a different Leung Bik they saw LOL) came to do a seminar MANY people would have known about it and would have wanted to make a point to be there.

I agree with you about the example.

Vicky

btw it is with a y not an i lol not that it matters as my french grandmother insisted I spelled it wrong anyway and it should have been with an ie, and so that is how she spelled it, can't argue with your grandmother lol.

[reneritchie]

Sorry, my bad spelling! Je m'excuse!

I've never heard anything beyond this one group that the Leung Bik seminar happened, and never from one of them who actually met the man, only who were told he was there.

I agree with you on people knowing about it. Sum Nung was in NYC in 1997, and I've found numerous people who actually met him at the time.

[kj]

Originally posted by Tom Kagan
And, if I told you that Yip Man really learned his skill from his SiHings, SiDai, ToDai, SiBaks, SiSuks, SiJats, etc., and mostly from within himself through sheer force of will, then gave the credit to his Sifu because he would have never met any of them if not for his Sifu, would you believe me?


If you said it, it would have little impact on my believing it. For most who honestly examine how they themselves and those around them learn and develop, this should not be a difficult pill to swallow.

Unknowns will always remain, but perhaps not such mysterious ones if myths can be set aside long enough to consider human natures and day-to-day life.

FWIW, I continuously enjoy your posts, both for style and thought value.

Regards,
- kj

[Tom Kagan]

not to mention all those accounts, including yip chings account, of him being an old man (some say in his 50's) when Yip Man attended St. Stephen's and met him in the early 1900's. Around 1910 according to Yip Ching's account as told by Ron Heimberger.

If I were to say those things, you might be right, if were to claim that Leung Bik, son of Leung Jan and the Leung Bik that a few of Yip Man's students say they met were the same person.

How is Ip Ching's story of Leung Jan's son (who may have died before Ip Ching was born depending on who you believe), as retold by Ron Heimberger - who was helped in his translations by Ip Ching's son who is now 16(?) - found on a website and published in a wonderful book paying great homage to his father be any more or less credible than Moy Yat's story of a man (who happened to know Ving Tsun and Yip Man visited roughly six times a year after the man moved from China to the New Territories in 1953) who had a nickname he and Yip Man picked just to have fun with some students, as retold by me - heard by me from Moy Yat who spoke excellent English - found right here on this website, and taken from an interview Moy Yat gave to a martial art magazine published in Spain a few years back?

That is, if I were to say those things, that's what I would be wondering. (Of course, if I were to say it, I'd try to figure out a better way to make the above paragraph into more than one sentence) :D


Rene, the bird was a canary. Unfortunately, Leung Bik never was able to get her to sing. <LOL>

Kathy Joe, thank you. Though we haven't met outside of cyberspace, I am impressed by and enjoy your expression of Ving Tsun "Tongue Fu", too.

[reneritchie]

What Tom's not saying is very interesting. One anonymous poster on the former VTAA board claimed there was a HFY sifu in the NT. Maybe something for Victor and Chango to chace down?

[WCis4me]

LOL Tom!!! What you are not saying was really hard to read, but very interesting, if you even wrote it.

You made an excellent point if it wasn't for the fact that you said when you weren't saying anything that, you, Moy Yat and Yip Ching were all together to pay your respects in 1997 if you ever told anyone that, and therefore Yip Ching would have had to agree with the fact that was Leung Biks grave, and that he helped to bury him many years earlier and that their was some conspiracy in the translation of what he said, in the book of great homage to his father, by his own son and student.
All this of course if in fact Leung Bik ever did die and if it was the same Leung Bik, and the same Moy Yat, and the same Yip Ching, and the same you. Now if you were to say that you were there and Yip Ching did confirm what Moy Yat may or may not have said to you or a magazine at some time in the past or future, we would all have to wonder how so many of the mainstream and not so mainstream students and non students of Yip Man were retelling the same story, unless of course they all learned it from Yip Ching in the 60's many years after some of them had started their own schools and despite that Yip Man was still their teacher with whom they could confer with regarding the matter.
Of course IF you ever told us something like that then we would have to wonder why you didn't see Leung Bik in person in NYC before or after visiting his gravesite while he was conducting a seminar to which many other credible or not so credible people may or may not have heard of.
Of course you didn't say anything like that so it really is a mute point just like the canary.
Not to mention that I may or may not tell you that I am the keeper of the secret scrolls and do know the ultimate truth.
If I were to say that, I might also say that the truth is, and you can prove it by combining all our resources, then upon peer review, find that the true history of Leung Bik is as follows:
Leung Bik (his alias, if we tell you his real name we will have to kill you) was born in the mid 1800's.
He may have had a father named Leung Jan or maybe not.
He moved to HK after having a falling out with another person who may or may not be Chan Wah Shun for peeking in his windows.
He was in HK in the early 1900's and taught kung fu while working at a silk factory and living on a fishing boat.
His daughter-in-law beat up a great kung fu master from secrets that he had taught her.
He faked his death at approximately 110 years old in 1968 so that people wouldn't know any of his true secrets that he passed on to some kid he met from St. Stephen's college. As he had an ultimate plan to out his secrets at a seminar in NYC.
He then taught in secret until 1997(he was approximately 137 years old and yes that person on the subway looking scary yesterday may or may not have been his top student) when he decided to come out of retirement in NYC to do a seminar, that was the plan all along, to reveal the secrets of wc and possibly name a successor. Unfortunately, no one attended (bad P.R. person) (or if they did tell you about it then they would have to kill you.)
William Cheung was also in NYC in 1997 (coincidence I think not!!!)
Moy Yat (if that's his real name and if we told you we would have to kill you) and Yip Ching(you know the drill) decided to take a student, who hasn't said anything about any of this to any internet forums, to the graveside to cover the fact that he faked his death and might have been seen in NYC so that everyone would once again believe that he was in fact dead and the secrets would once again be protected (whew).
Leung Bik then went back to china to live in a park with his mute canary where he is to this day (approx 143 years old and whoever says practicing WC doesn't promote longevity knows better now).
All the dates have been changed or distorted through the ages in an effort to protect the secrets.
That is, if you can prove the true history of Leung Bik by combining all our sources, upon peer review, and if I were to say that is what the truth is, which I/we haven't.

*disclaimer*
If I was going to make a disclaimer this is what it would say:
This entire post was written tongue-in-cheek with no disrespect intended towards any lineage, claim, person, or history. If you don't get that then you will instantly lose all of your MA skills and spontaneously combust in the next 30 seconds, according to the legend of the 40 masters of the secret letting water flow under the bridge, while floating on a red boat, singing like a canary, scrolls.

:p

[FIRE HAWK]

Although Yip Man believed that wing chun began in the Shaolin Temple, many of his followers have since discounted the story. Still, Britishborn wing chun expert Alan Lamb points out that during the years he lived in Hong Kong, he sought out an elderly kung fu master named Wong Wan Chin. Wong had spent some time at the Shaolin Temple in his youth, well before World War 11. And, Lamb insisted that the movements from the three wing chun forms-sil lum tao, chum kui, and bil gee- were all contained within the more elaborate Shaolin forms that Wong had learned at the temple, a fact which seems to reinforce Yip Man's original explanation.)
Wong Wan Chin is that him ?
http://www.cheungswingchun.com/Articles/Article.WCS.2.html

[WCis4me]

Take cover FireHawk!!! Run while you can :D

Vicky

[PaulH]

Where is Henry James at this hour? "The historian, essentially, wants more documents than he can really use; the dramatist only wants more liberties than he can really take...The effort really to see and really to represent is no idle business in face of the constant force that makes for muddlement. The great thing is indeed that the muddled state too is one of the very sharpest of the realities, that it also has colour and form and character, has often in fact a broad and rich comicality."

[John Weiland]

Hi Tom,

Interesting post. I am interested in this history and not trying to poke holes in your story, but may I ask some respectful questions? :)


Originally posted by Tom Kagan
If I told you my Sifu met him several times between 1963-1967, would you believe me?

If I told you my Sifu and my SiBak, Ip Ching, helped bury him in 1968, would you believe me?

Is it you who I must believe? Or, must I believe that this is what you were told? Two separate issues IMO.


If I told you my Sifu and my SiBak, Ip Ching, took me to his grave to pay our respects in 1997, would you believe me?

Yes. With the previous caveat about the earlier conjectures.


If I told you that Leung Bik was the man's nickname and not his real name, would you believe me?

Even Yip Man was not Yip Man's real name. At least not his full name. I would give the name here but my limited Cantonese/and/Romanization skills fail me.


If I told you he was a student of Fong Wah and not Leung Jan's son, would you believe me?

With proof, I might. I'm not 100 percent convinced that Leung Jan had a son named Leung Bik, or if he did, that he met and taught Yip Man as a teenager.


And, if I told you that Yip Man really learned his skill from his SiHings, SiDai, ToDai, SiBaks, SiSuks, SiJats, etc., and mostly from within himself through sheer force of will, then gave the credit to his Sifu because he would have never met any of them if not for his Sifu, would you believe me?

I am inclined to. This correlates to part of the history I've been able to noodle out. One question though is if Yip Man was such a genius for innovation, why is other quality Wing Chun still conveyed through other lineages? It suggests that the formula for teaching came down along with the art.

All in all, I think we're a long way from proving anything on the subject of Leung Bik.

Regards,

[yuanfen]

John W. sez:
All in all, I think we're a long way from proving anything on the subject of Leung Bik
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but cycles of collective self flagellation on a net list
can sub. for lack of in depth discussion of the art itself.

[Tom Kagan]

What Tom's not saying is very interesting. One anonymous poster on the former VTAA board claimed there was a HFY sifu in the NT. Maybe something for Victor and Chango to chace down?

"When you control the hands and feet, there are no secrets." -- Ving Tsun Kuen Kuit

You didn't hear it from me: Looking for a Hung Suen school in Kowloon instead would probably be less of a wild goose chase. (Shh! Don't tell anyone!)

While they're at it, maybe someone could look into what Moy Yat was doing with his free time when his boss at the Hong Kong housing authority banished him to the New Territories for a short while. As the stories go, they used to play snooker to see who would pay for dinner. Moy Yat's boss transfered him there after beating his boss one too many times.

If I told you he was just working, teaching a bit of Kung Fu there, and spending a lot of time on the train figuring out a way to get back on his boss's good side, would you believe me?


ADDENDUM: (It took me a moment, but I've always had problems with my timing.) Did anyone besides me see the irony when realizing a person with the nickname "FIRE HAWK" made a serious post right after Vicky stated that anyone not taking this discussion as tongue-in-cheek would burst into flames?

[Ultimatewingchun]

Look...the bottom line is that William Cheung has been teaching a system (publicly) since 1972 and VERY publicly since 1982 that in many ways is very different than what he first learned from Yip Man (along with Yip Mans's other students)...

and in MANY ways looks just like Hung Fa Yi.

SO WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM....IF NOT FROM YIP MAN?...(Good question)

Did he make it up?....(Don't think so - too intricate) And it just so happens that what he made up looks just like HFY ?...(Isn't that amazing?!) Did Garrett Gee teach it to him?... (REALLY don't think so)


And now we hear that Yip Man visited someone six times a year who knew wing chun ? (Why would he do that?...if not to learn something from him?)

And we also hear that he NICKNAMED him Leung Bik???!!!

Of all the ridiculous stories I've heard as yet...the NICKNAME one takes the cake! (What a way to deny Leung Bik's existence than to say that it was just a nickname!...a truly retarded and nonsensical proposition) - Except for the one that it's not Leung Bik buried in that grave!!! It's a tie! There both equally absurd!

Just get over it - William Cheung learned it from Yip Man who learned it from Leung Bik....THE WORLD WON'T COME TO AN END IF THE DENIAL ABOUT THIS STOPS!

[BAI HE]

Well when one of you finds Leung Bik, tell him
I want my two dollars.

[reneritchie]

2 bucks? Your b!tchin over a lousy 2 bucks? There's a poncy bugger over what owes me five quid!

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Look...the bottom line is that William Cheung has been teaching a system (publicly) since 1972 and VERY publicly since 1982 that in many ways is very different than what he first learned from Yip Man (along with Yip Mans's other students)...

So, are you suggesting that after leaving HK, William Cheung properly forgot what he'd been taught by Yip Man and TWC is the result? :p

[Ultimatewingchun]

John Weiland:

Did you say "properly" forgot the first version he learned from Yip Man?

Is it proper for you to think so little of that system?

Don't you do that system?

William Cheung didn't forget anything - he just made a vow about not teaching the second system while Yip Man was alive. It's okay.
Relax man - the sun will still shine tomorrow - if William Cheung learned two systems from Yip Man.

It's okay....It's okay....Om Om AUM

Would you like some cookies and milk?

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun

Would you like some cookies and milk?
Actually, I'd like a T-bone and bottle of dry Merlot. I never like to settle for less than my immediate and long term gratification, in food or Wing Chun. :)

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


I know you have already extended me your secret Fork Kiu technique but since I am such a nice guy I, and can absorb lots of blows do to my quido upbringing in the Italian community, it bounced of my Tiet Sun and now I am back. Joke of course.

I am going to list a bunch of what if's so take them with a grain of salt!

Also, I am not saying this stuff to bother you (or HFY) but rather I am saying this stuff to try and figure this whole mystery thing out as if what you are saying is true then that would mean what Leung Jan taught in Koo Lo would also be the basic or modified (as you call it) version of the art that I am practicing so its for me as much as anyone else reading this.


SO WHERE DID HE GET IT FROM....IF NOT FROM YIP MAN?...(Good question)

This is the million dollar question.

-What if YM learned it from another source and just told WCheung that it was from Bik versus giving credit to the other source (as some do)?

-What if YM was working on developing his own personal synthesis of WC and taught it to WCheung and just kept the Bik thing versus giving himself credit (as some do)

-What if WCheung learned it from the Sihing of Gee (as the HFY community says) and just kept the basic YM history for his family since YM was so well known (as some do)?

-What if someone in Garratte's lineage developed the art and used a different story for the people in the lineage?

-What if he learned some Pin Sun WC and combined it with his YMWC to create TWC (as a chinese man suggested to me) and I can list the reasons he said that if you like?

-What if what if what if???

Did he make it up?....(Don't think so - too intricate)

How hard would it be if there was a combo of stylic info. by someone with a good ammount of experience? Many people over the years have developed arts. Then again he could have been taught it that way so lets look into all avenues!

And it just so happens that what he made up looks just like HFY ?...(Isn't that amazing?!)

Perhaps that is the source versus Bik. It would make more sense since all the known info. on Leung Jan shows it would be totally impossible to be from Wong Wah Bo/LJ. What if HFY got it from WCheung and used a blended Hung Mun history for the story?

Did Garrett Gee teach it to him?... (REALLY don't think so)

Some say Garrattes Sihing did but where is this sihing? At the moment only WCheung and GG do a similar art yet we haven't found any other people practicing it so who knows? More practitioners need to be found from both Garratte's family and the Leung Jan's family?


All this should be looked at logically and without emotions. Also, since there are known facts that can be proven about Leung Jan's lineage, teaching, family and sister lineages we should allow that to play a heavy role in the researching of your arts story.

Just get over it - William Cheung learned it from Yip Man who learned it from Leung Bik....

Unless you can show some proven evidence to support this belief then its just your belief without any facts to back it up.

THE WORLD WON'T COME TO AN END IF THE DENIAL ABOUT THIS STOPS!

Same would be for the reverse of this story! You would still have a good art and still do what you do so it really doesnt matter other than from a historical POV.


Take care!


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jim Roselando:

Since we're throwing out all kinds of what if's - (which is exactly what an objective investigation should do) - then let me add one more to the mix:

What if we now explore what Garrett Gee himself wrote about HFY....BEFORE the article I referred to that appeared in KUNGFU QIGONG magazine...something not mentioned in the article.

Because last night I found a brochure for Gee's school that Miguel Hernandex gave me some time ago - wherein Gee mentions Wong Wah Bo as one of the few who also learned HFY...

I have to double check that again when I go home - but as of right now I'm almost positive that that is what it said in the brochure; which was very detailed as to what Gee claimed was the history of the art.

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Victor!


Excellent!

Lets place it all on the table and go from there!

I look forward to reading your post on that info..

I think if we all share, and work together, then we should be able to sort thru and come up with some good info..


Regards,

[Ultimatewingchun]

First of all, let me start with the names that William Cheung lists as the Wing Chun family tree. The Five Elders...and from one of them - Ng Mui - comes the following lineage: Yim Wing Chun/
Leung Bok Chau/ Leung Lan Kwai/ Wong Wah Bo/ Leung Yee Tai/
Leung Jan....
You presumably already know what William Cheung says happened next; and let's not rehash the existence or non-existence of the likes of Ng Mui or Yim Wing Chun right now, let's just look at the last three for the moment - as they are THE MOST PERTINENT ONES to our present discussions on this and other related threads - namely Wong Wah Bo/ Leung Yee Tai/ Leung Jan.

Now let's quote some of Garrett Gee's brochure...and keep in mind that the article about HFY in the KUNGFU QIGONG magazine, written by Richard Loewenhagen, that I quoted on the TWC & HFY thread - stated at one point that:
..."Leung Jan learned his wing chun directly from Red Boat members"...

Now from the brochure: ..."In order to keep his identity and Shaolin background from the Manchurian government, Cheung Bo formed the Red Boat Opera Troupe...During his traveling with the Red Boat Opera Troupe, Cheung Ng soon became known as 'Tan Sao Ng' from his skilled usage of the dispersing hand manuever to subdue opponents during challenges...Although the Hung Fa Wui (Red Flower Society) was destroyed, Tan Sao Ng continued his mission...

...He established the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe (the Red Flower Union)...Of the seven select members of the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe who became the first generation disciples of Tan Sao Ng, only four disciples were significant in the contribution to Wing Chun history: Hung Gun Biu ('Red Bandana Biu'), Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tei, and Dai Fa Min Kam ('Painted Face Kam')..."

So one of the differences is that William Cheung lists Wong Wah Bo as Leung Yee Tei's sifu; whereas Garrett Gee lists Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai as both being students of Cheung Ng (Tan Sao Ng).

BUT THE BIGGER POINT IS THAT BOTH WILLIAM CHEUNG AND GARRETT GEE list Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tei as practitioners of TWC/HFY....(and don't forget about Leung Jan - as they both say the same thing about him too.

Also keep in mind the the two systems look more like each other than any other version of Wing Chun.

VERY INTERESTING !!!

[Ultimatewingchun]

By the way: the Garrett Gee brochure has a big color image of the HFY logo -and the back-to-back Butterfly Swords as the centerpiece foundation of the logo does indeed resemble the TWC logo...

[WCis4me]

Hi Victor,

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
Except for the one that it's not Leung Bik buried in that grave!!! It's a tie! There both equally absurd!

Ummmm if that is about my post, it was just done in total fun, meshing all the theories together to show how funny it sounded.
If it wasn't about my post please excuse the interuption.:)

Vicky

[Alpha Dog]

I met him once. He was having lunch on College Street West in a greasy spoon Italian place that is open late. I asked him what he was doing here and he said, "Waiting for my bill!"

[yuanfen]

Did he leave a tip?

[John Weiland]

Originally posted by yuanfen
Did he leave a tip?
There are two stories that survive.

In the first, he leaves a tip, but changes his mind and picks it up. In the second, he tells the waiter all about a secret style of Wing Chun and recieves a free dessert. :p

[yuanfen]

Figures!

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


Good stuff. Thanks for sharing.

Lets see what we can come up with.


First of all, let me start with the names that William Cheung lists as the Wing Chun family tree. The Five Elders...and from one of them - Ng Mui - comes the following lineage: Yim Wing Chun/
Leung Bok Chau/ Leung Lan Kwai/ Wong Wah Bo/ Leung Yee Tai/
Leung Jan....
You presumably already know what William Cheung says happened next; and let's not rehash the existence or non-existence of the likes of Ng Mui or Yim Wing Chun right now, let's just look at the last three for the moment - as they are THE MOST PERTINENT ONES to our present discussions on this and other related threads - namely Wong Wah Bo/ Leung Yee Tai/ Leung Jan.

Good start. There is no reason to debate over the fables and just start with the people that we know "more likely" existed. JR

Now let's quote some of Garrett Gee's brochure...and keep in mind that the article about HFY in the KUNGFU QIGONG magazine, written by Richard Loewenhagen, that I quoted on the TWC & HFY thread - stated at one point that:
..."Leung Jan learned his wing chun directly from Red Boat members"...

So far so good. LJ as far as all stories state "most likely" did learn directly from the Red Boat members and since his time frame (and the RB time frame) fit we can say this is ok so far! JR

Now from the brochure: ..."In order to keep his identity and Shaolin background from the Manchurian government, Cheung Bo formed the Red Boat Opera Troupe...During his traveling with the Red Boat Opera Troupe, Cheung Ng soon became known as 'Tan Sao Ng' from his skilled usage of the dispersing hand manuever to subdue opponents during challenges...Although the Hung Fa Wui (Red Flower Society) was destroyed, Tan Sao Ng continued his mission...

...He established the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe (the Red Flower Union)...Of the seven select members of the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe who became the first generation disciples of Tan Sao Ng, only four disciples were significant in the contribution to Wing Chun history: Hung Gun Biu ('Red Bandana Biu'), Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tei, and Dai Fa Min Kam ('Painted Face Kam')..."

I will have to leave this for Rene or Hendrik or someone else with actual knowledge on this stuff (that can show/list their resources for proof) as I dont know didly other than the stories I have read but that would just be repeating stories and I dont believe in that. JR

So one of the differences is that William Cheung lists Wong Wah Bo as Leung Yee Tei's sifu; whereas Garrett Gee lists Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tai as both being students of Cheung Ng (Tan Sao Ng).

Well, WWB was rumored to be the big dog (or senior) I believe on the troup but I never heard of him teaching LYT. I have only heard that LJ learned his WC from both WWB and LYT. Next! It would be impossible for WWB and LYT et al to have learned from Cheung Ng. The timeline does not fit. We can "more likely" regard that as inaccurate. JR

BUT THE BIGGER POINT IS THAT BOTH WILLIAM CHEUNG AND GARRETT GEE list Wong Wah Bo and Leung Yee Tei as practitioners of TWC/HFY....(and don't forget about Leung Jan - as they both say the same thing about him too.

The only propblem is that anyone can say anything they want so we need to evidence to back it up! Also, the "more likely" evidence that is "known" shows that more than one lineage from Wong Wah Bo, more than one lineage from LJ (including his own family) and more than one lineage from the Red Boat practice a form of WC that is not structurally like HFY/TWC. JR

Also keep in mind the the two systems look more like each other than any other version of Wing Chun.

VERY INTERESTING !!!

That is the very interesting part. So, with what info. is known (or can be shown so far), we would have to say that at the moment it is "more likely" that TWC may be more related to HFY than to LJ lineage but the problem with saying that is there is way too much signature YMWC in TWC so more research need be done. Perhaps TWC roots come from HFY but do to Cheung sifu's YMWC experience that would be the reason for the obvious elements of YMWC in it???? Who knows? More research need be done!

Thanks for the info. Vistor and hopefully in the future we can share some other thoughts/views with each other.


Regards,

[Phenix]

Hi JIm,

There are certain question were raised about Leong Bik in the orient.


1, Some says Leong Bik passed away early.

2, Where is Leong Bik's grave. HongKong? Fut San? KoLo?

[Phenix]

Of the seven select members of the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe who became the first generation disciples of Tan Sao Ng, only four disciples were significant in the contribution to Wing Chun history: Hung Gun Biu ('Red Bandana Biu'), Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tei, and Dai Fa Min Kam ('Painted Face Kam')..."



If So why don't there any written records? Yik Kam passed down to very detail twelf people's name. and why is there is only four without Yik Kam?


People will always argue "oh they are top rebels, so no record... otherwise Qing will get them...."

Why is in the revolution there is record of Lee Man-Mau but not Hung Gun Biu?

On the other hand, realisticly, doesn't matter top rebels,ect... where is the medicine book? That is a signature! See, it is not illigal to carry the MEDICINE BOOK in Qing dynaty.


IMHO, if people are so certain to claim things from Shao Lin, and Cheong Ng, then show the Medicine book.
Show it and see it is from Shao Lin or other place? if One doesn't even have one. Then, there is problem.

[KPM]

Hi Victor:

You wrote:
...He established the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe (the Red Flower Union)...Of the seven select members of the Hung Fa Wui Goon troupe who became the first generation disciples of Tan Sao Ng, only four disciples were significant in the contribution to Wing Chun history: Hung Gun Biu ('Red Bandana Biu'), Wong Wah Bo, Leung Yee Tei, and Dai Fa Min Kam ('Painted Face Kam')..."


---There is a problem here. One that has been pointed out numerous times in the past, and one that has given many of us a problem with HFY's version of WCK history. Cheung Ng is indeed an historical figure. He is documented in the records of the Chinese Opera. The problem is that he is dated to the mid 1700's. Wong Wah Bo and the rest in the "Red Boat" generation are dated to the mid to late 1800's. There is around 100 yrs of time between Cheung Ng and Wong Wah Bo, so there is no way that Wong could have been a direct student of Tan Sau Ng. In the early info about HFY on the VTM website the same lineage was given as what you describe from that brochure. When the historical problem was pointed out, it should come as no surprise that several names appeared in the lineage separating Cheung Ng and Wong Wah Bo. The result of better research? Revisionist history? Patching the holes in "pseudohistory"? Who knows. The point is that I wouldn't put too much stock in what you read in that brochure.

Keith

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Hendrik,



There are certain question were raised about Leong Bik in the orient.


Indeed. In Koo Lo they state that Leung Bik only did a basic level of WC so he would be able to defend himself in case he had to. I heard that he learned some WC in Futshan but later visited his father in Koo Lo and learned Tang Ma Biu Jee and Wan Wun Yiu as emergency type saving moves. How accurate is this info.? About as accurate as all info. on Bik which I would say should be taken with a grain of salt.


1, Some says Leong Bik passed away early.

I heard this about Leung Chun but some do say there was only one son from Leung Jan so???

2, Where is Leong Bik's grave. HongKong? Fut San? KoLo?

This would be a key to the mystery as I am hopefully going to go to china next year and will try to find out as much as possible. I find it hard to believe he was ever in HK but all in do time. Hopefully, Leung Wai Nam and Fung Chun will be able to provide "verifiable" info. to solve te mystery.


Regards,

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Hendrik,


If So why don't there any written records? Yik Kam passed down to very detail twelf people's name. and why is there is only four without Yik Kam?

Valid point/question?

People will always argue "oh they are top rebels, so no record... otherwise Qing will get them...."

Why is in the revolution there is record of Lee Man-Mau but not Hung Gun Biu?

Valid point/question?

On the other hand, realisticly, doesn't matter top rebels,ect... where is the medicine book? That is a signature! See, it is not illigal to carry the MEDICINE BOOK in Qing dynaty.


IMHO, if people are so certain to claim things from Shao Lin, and Cheong Ng, then show the Medicine book.
Show it and see it is from Shao Lin or other place? if One doesn't even have one. Then, there is problem.

Another very interesting point. Let me say why I think this is a very very intersting point! In Jook Lum Gee Nam Tong Long Kuen they maintain that they are from Shaolin. They believe that all Shaolin arts have a few things tat show connections.

One was medicine! Jook Lum medicine was part of their tradition and my friend (who was a disciple of Lam Sang sifu) always acknowledge that only the disciples got the medicine from his sifu and his sifu would often give wrong formulas to non disciples. it was an important part of their tradition. Wong Yuk Gong's Jook Lum family in china still maintains this tradition and other proper lineages have it so.....

Next! Sun Toi! If the art is supposed to be from Shaolin they should have a Sun Toi with symbolism on it (sun gung/etc) and in Jook Lum Gee they ackowledge that in the different lineages found in the world one just needs to check the Sun Toi to see if they are part of their tradition. Check out:

www.bambootemple.com for pictures of their temples and sun toi!


Gotta run!


See ya,

[Phenix]

Hi Jim,

Hopefully you can find the Grave of Leung Bik. That solve lots of things. Since in the Grave normally, it will state the birth and dead date. And as for the location, it shows do Leung actually go to Hong Kong or stay in Fat San. It the orient some says that LJ went back to KoLo after Son's passing away ...

As for the Medicine Book, sure it is an evident of root. Yik Kam's medicine book including the medicine from the other Source. So we know Yik Kam for sure is in the Red Junk and also who was in Red Junk at that time....

Certainly, people can proof about Shao LIn.... but that is general. too general to be even belief. Need detail specifics. Up to now, I am disappointed from the so called researchers... still no detail specific. There are lots of things and evident one can look into..... even language.... as I say Qi Gong is a term polular after 1911. So those so called researchers have to work harder or ask for help if they have no direction.. IMHO.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Vicky:

The remark about the gravesite wasn't directed at you; and glad you're enjoying the other thread about combining wing chun and
grappling.

Jim :

Quite possible that William Cheung uses some signature moves from Yip Man's "first" system in TWC; although if you could be more specific about it I might be able to say more...

Keith:

Not sure what to make of the brochure either - but given my oft repeated assertion that TWC and HFY look more like each other than they do other wing chun systems - and given the fact that I believe strongly in the SECRECY FACTOR as the reason why some people were taught TWC/HFY and others were not...because secrecy is always part of the nature of such political movements and revolutionary activities thoughout all world history...

So although I'm not sure what the exact historical connections are - names, dates, places, etc. - the way I see it there HAS to be some connection between the two systems that makes them more like brother systems to each other, whereas the rest of the wing chun lineages are more like cousins to the two brothers - if you can accept such an analogy.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Hendrik!


Hi Jim,

Hopefully you can find the Grave of Leung Bik. That solve lots of things. Since in the Grave normally, it will state the birth and dead date. And as for the location, it shows do Leung actually go to Hong Kong or stay in Fat San. It the orient some says that LJ went back to KoLo after Son's passing away ...


I am expecting a lot of stuff answered but unless they can show me the evidence to back up the questions I will not be able to say its accurate or not. Thats why I will want to find the graves, family etc..

As for LJ going back to Koo Lo after his son passing away I would have to discuss this with you offlist as that is not the reason the Koo Lo family states for LJ returning to his home. ;)


See ya,

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor,


Thanks for the discussion! Discussing the info. like this helps sort out things in a nice way!

I will list below some of the things I can see being from YM system (and possible non Wong Wah Bo/LJ) in TWC rather than known WWB/LJ teaching.


Jim :

Quite possible that William Cheung uses some signature moves from Yip Man's "first" system in TWC; although if you could be more specific about it I might be able to say more...


1) Dan Chi-Yip designed this as this particular set (Tan/Jeung/Bong-Fook/Jut/Chung) and it is not found in other Wong Wah Bo lineages.

2) Your first version of the Siu Nim Tau set is closest to Tsui Song Tin's SNT set and that makes sense since Tsui was supposed to be the one who taught it to Cheung sifu.

3) The closing of your sections in the SNT do not make use of the twisting grasping hand but rather the Huen Sao to closed fist as that is not found in other Wong Wah Bo lineages.

4) Terminology in TWC is mostly YMWC terms.

5) The Luk Sao cycle for Chi Sao is indeed from YMWC as YM probally got it from his time with YKS and in LJ/Yik Kam we make use of 4 circling hands platforms and other lineages from LJ (not connecting to YM or YKS in any way) do not make use of Luk Sao platform. YKS also has circling hands!

6) The Lop Sao cycle being used in TWC with the Bong/Lop/Chung Choi is indeed different from other Wong Wah Bo lineages as we mainly use the Gwa Choi rolling wing type action.

7) The Muk Yan Jong set of TWC seems to be closest to Tsiu's set I am told but even if it isn't it is still mainly the TWC version of YM's jong form which would be different from other WC jong sets. I also read the TWC has a two leg jong which is not found in any other WC.

8) Cheung sifu makes use of the term Chi (hay) and in other Wong Wah Bo lineage we make no use of the term Chi (or chi kung) but rather Noi as Hendrik pointed out the term Chi came around after WC was already established so its a modern term.

9) The ASLT is a moving version of the SLT set but the other lineages stemming from Wong Wah Bo, LJ and Yik Kam do not have two versions of SLT.

10) The name Bot Jom Do is the term Yip coined for his knife set. Other Wong Wah Bo lineages make use of Yee Jee Yum Yeung Dit Ming Do or just Yee Jee Do.


Any help would be appreciated as I believe we are moving a positive way and our combined efforts will benefit the WC community. Please note that all of this stuff is good Kung Fu but we are researching its sources and roots to make connections and it is not to put anyone up/down/better/worst. Names, drills, ways of movement etc. can show a link when researching.


Regards,

[yuanfen]

Graves and markers when they exist in the first place- can deteriorate, change, be ploughed under...

Also- neighbors dont always know the details of what happens within a family.

New information and impressions are nice to have but inference
and induction from them is tricky business.

[Phil Redmond]

8) Cheung sifu makes use of the term Chi (hay) and in other Wong Wah Bo lineage we make no use of the term Chi (or chi kung) but rather Noi as Hendrik pointed out the term Chi came around after WC was already established so its a modern term.
The term Chi is used in the Yellow Emperor Classic. I believe it's older than WC. The term Hei/Chi simply can mean air. I know that term has been around a long time before WC.
Phil

[yuanfen]

Phil-
While the term Chi is very old- it has had several different meanings. But I believe Hendrik was talking about chi gung-
not just about generic use of the term chi ...a different context.
Siu(?) has written an entire book on the different meanings of chi.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jim Roselando:

1) Okay - so dan chi sao is not found in other WWB lineages

2) TWC SLT closest to TST's ? Also close (but no cigar) to Moy Yat's and probably many other Yip Man students...but still different in about a dozen different ways...but you say not close to WWB's..okay

3)The closing of SLT...okay

4) terminology...okay

5 & 6)...okay (luk sao and lop sao)

7) Wooden Dummy is very different than other Yip Man students' set...but if you say it's closer to them than WWB's...okay

8) Chi is a modern term....no help therefore in the investigation

9) ASLT not found in WWB's system...okay

10) Different words used to describe Butterfly Swords...okay.

How do I account for all the Okay's ?

Either Wong Wah Bo did not know TWC/HFY or did know but chose to teach (publicly) another version of Wing Chun...because the part of the HFY story about a "civilian" version(s) of the art developing and making adaptions to fit many cultural factors (ie.- life on boats)...modifications that did not necessarily apply to warfare between a revolutionary army and the Manchurian gov't army - that part of their story makes sense to me.

So you and I are really back to square one - it would seem.
If it wasn't WWB then it was someone else teaching (and passing on) TWC/HFY at that time period...or maybe it was him but he purposely left "no paper trail" other than the the trail that led to Leung Jan having two versions and only teaching the TWC/HFY version to his son(s)...IMO

IT'S ABOUT THE FOOTWORK...William Cheung has always said that one version has the footwork and the other system does not...and by that I mean that TWC has MUCH footwork that other Wing Chun systems do not (except HFY - from what I've seen of it so far). I'm not saying other wc systems don't have footwork...it is a matter of degree...

But the FOOTWORK that William Cheung talks about, and in the article about HFY that I quoted on the TWC & HFY thread - both systems are saying the same thing about the FOOTWORK...that modifications were made...and in the missing footwork we not only find the parallel and cross rules of foot placement, the sidestepping moves - of which the T-stance is only one of many different variations...we not only find the Entry technique (obviously a piece of footwork)...the blindside strategy -the culmination of and primary purpose for the missing footwork...
but also the turning of the centerline to face the point of contact...ie.- dual central (center) lines..one to block on and one to strike back on...

THIS FOOTWORK and its consequences and ramifications either just don't exist in other wc systems or are not really things that other systems pay much attention to...

BUT I KEEP POINTING TO THEM because they are what the whole matter is really about...this "footwork thing" is TOO intricate and frankly TOO valuable and TOO widespread (meaning it exists in both TWC and HFY)...to say that it was made up by William Cheung...or made up by Garrett Gee...IMO it had to have a much longer history - which means, I believe, that somebody back there (in WWB's time) - had to be teaching it.

[yuanfen]

Ultimatewc- your comments on less footwork in wc than in twc
is severely limited by your insufficient exposure to other wc.
(Yes- I know that you were in one wc line before)

[WCis4me]

Hi Jim,

Jim Wrote:

As for LJ going back to Koo Lo after his son passing away I would have to discuss this with you offlist as that is not the reason the Koo Lo family states for LJ returning to his home
Just curious why you can share other aspects of your 'knowledge' of the Koo Lo family and their thoughts and ideas but need to go 'offlist' with this one?

I thought you wanted us all to to share and learn more, so that we could all get to the 'truth', or as close to it as possible? Isn't offlisting about supposed pertinent LJ information defeating that purpose?

Regards,
Vicky

[Ultimatewingchun]

No... Joy, but I'm sorry to say that it is YOU who is obviously limited by the amount of TWC footwork - AND ALL ITS RAMIFICATIONS - that you haven't seen...

I'm familiar with the non-TWC footwork coming from the following:

Moy Yat, Wong Shun Leung, Leung Ting, Duncan Leung, Victor Kan, Mak Po, Hawkins Cheung, Jason Lau, Chun Kwok Chow, Bruce Lee's wing chun footwork... and probably a few others I just can't recall at the moment.

[Phil Redmond]

You wrote:
>>Phil-
While the term Chi is very old- it has had several different meanings. But I believe Hendrik was talking about chi gung-
not just about generic use of the term chi ...a different context.
Siu(?) has written an entire book on the different meanings of chi.<<

I was talking about chi gong/hei gung. Please don't forget that I am pretty familiar with the Chinese language. Aside from my Cantonese, Toisan, (with some Fukien,Shanghai, Fujow dialects), I'm also learning my Sifu's native dialect, Chujow, and Mandarin. I'm quite aware that Chi has different connotations. Just as I'm aware of the 8 different Chi in TCM.

Phil

[burnsypoo]

Originally posted by Ultimatewingchun
No... Joy, but I'm sorry to say that it is YOU who is obviously limited by the amount of TWC footwork - AND ALL ITS RAMIFICATIONS - that you haven't seen...

I'm familiar with the non-TWC footwork coming from the following:

Moy Yat, Wong Shun Leung, Leung Ting, Duncan Leung, Victor Kan, Mak Po, Hawkins Cheung, Jason Lau, Chun Kwok Chow, Bruce Lee's wing chun footwork... and probably a few others I just can't recall at the moment.

do you mean 'amount' as in "number of", or as in "emphasis/reliance on"?

[Ultimatewingchun]

burnsypoo:

I mean the "number of" as in the various different stepping and stepping strategy patterns that exist within TWC - and - the "reliance" upon the footwork that helps the TWC practitioner to "emphasize" the dual central lines, the blindside strategy, etc.

[Phil Redmond]

I'll have to agree with Victor that TWC has footwork not found in other WC. My list would be just as long as Victor's. I can add even some non-YMWC to my list of WC exposure. I had my own business for years. That allowed me to study with 2-3 sifus at a time as I had someone run my business while I trained. Yup, I've had a little WC exposure over the last 33 years.

[Phenix]

The term QiGung is not popular before 1911 era. That is a fact.
People is using Nei Kung. Read those old classical.




AS for the Hei Gong, the term is not really complete.
Hei Gong translate to English means Breath Work.

Now, Noi Kung is more appropriate since Internal always means Ching, qi, Shen. And Noi Kung is the training of Ching, qi, Shen.

On the other hand, there is a different between Qi and Mai and Ching (medirian). There is a different if the Mai transport via the path of Ching (meridirian) or not...how to activate it .. transport forward of reverse....... Long story.


there is no exemption for detail understanding of what is what. Until one understand and clear about what is what. Looking for simple is not going to work. One just Cannot "horse horse tiger tiger" (sloppy sloppy). Simple is not simplified and cannot be simplified. Doesn't matter either TaiJi or Bahgua or Xing Yee or WCK.... All needs detail precision understanding.

One doesn't have to buy the "keep training " and one will get there marketing pitch. Also, One doesn't have to buy Substitute Bagua or Yoga.... importing pitch.
Without understanding what is what , all above are the same confusion practiced. IMHO


As the saying ---- learning has not senior or junior, one who is mastering the art is the teacher. Time is not an indicator of mastering. Rank is not. Title is not. Learning direct from anyone is not. IMHO

[yuanfen]

Victor- sez
No... Joy, but I'm sorry to say that it is YOU who is obviously limited by the amount of TWC footwork - AND ALL ITS RAMIFICATIONS - that you haven't seen...
----------------------------------------------------------------
Not really Victor-
what I do has plenty of footwork-
I do not need TWC footwork including the T stance, the entry techniques and other mysteries... why?
Our stancing is different among many other things.
Our teas are just different. You can enjoy yours... but repeatedly
critiquing other non TWC things get boring and repetitious after a while.

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Vicky!


How are you?


I appreciate your question and understand your pov! I will explain some stuff below.

The Koo Lo family have stuff/info. they prefer to keep inside the familyfriends (the people who preserve their tradition) and stuff they would be willing to share openly. I am willing to share all technical info. (as I have and still do) and other historical info. with anyone who is open to share with me. The info. I would be offlisting is nothing special and has nothing to do with any debate about LJ. The truth is many dont know "sqwat" about LJ. Many who claim this or that didn't even know he was from Koo Lo or even retired/taught in Koo Lo and I am not talking about TWC with that statement. Can someone tell me one story of LJ teaching his pupils or about one of his many fights? Even the stories Leung Ting state in his Roots book about LJ all/mainly come from Fung Chun/Koo Lo. So, am I defeating the purpose by respecting a small part of info. per my families wishes? Not in my eyes since all other info. I am sharing is much more valuable to the debate/reasearch comparison going on. IMO Koo Lo family has been ultra generous with regards to their info. when the truth is they/we really dont have to. Also, many lineages share info. with each other in private. In the old days they would meet over tea and discuss but now we have e-mail! Hendrik has been quite generous to me and I have spoken with him many times via e-mail and we have spoken on the phone once. One little tip he gave me over the phone has helped my Zhan Zhuang a lot. Same goes for some other lineages friends like Rene, my Pan Nam lineage friends, etc. and even some private e-mails with Weng Chun lineage. So, hopefully you understand a bit better now and hopefully you appreciate the fairly large ammount of sharing that has been going on and will continue to go on!


Question for you?

What does TWC history say the reason is for Leung Jan returning back to his home village?



Regards,

[yuanfen]

Phil sez:
I'll have to agree with Victor that TWC has footwork not found in other WC.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure TWC has footwork that I dont have. Thank heavens!

[Ultimatewingchun]

Aha...Joy...You "don't need" all the extra footwork...

Now that's alot different than saying that all this other "unnecessary" footwork doesn't exist -

So the real issue is one of necessity or not.

May you always have all the necessities of life in the circles that you travel in.

And may those circles always remain small...

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor!


Excellent info./discussion! I truly appreciate your willingness to go thru this with me.


Jim Roselando:

1) Okay - so dan chi sao is not found in other WWB lineages
2) TWC SLT closest to TST's ? Also close (but no cigar) to Moy Yat's and probably many other Yip Man students...but still different in about a dozen different ways...but you say not close to WWB's..okay

I understand it is different in some ways but if you have witnessed numerous versions of SLT (not just the YM lineage you have been exposed to) you would see who’s lineage that would come from and indeed it is primarily YM SNT.

3)The closing of SLT...okay
4) terminology...okay
5 & 6)...okay (luk sao and lop sao)
7) Wooden Dummy is very different than other Yip Man students' set...but if you say it's closer to them than WWB's...okay

Same applies to the what I just wrote about SNT.

8) Chi is a modern term....no help therefore in the investigation
9) ASLT not found in WWB's system...okay
10) Different words used to describe Butterfly Swords...okay.

How do I account for all the Okay's ?

Either Wong Wah Bo did not know TWC/HFY or did know but chose to teach (publicly) another version of Wing Chun...because the part of the HFY story about a "civilian" version(s) of the art developing and making adaptions to fit many cultural factors (ie.- life on boats)...modifications that did not necessarily apply to warfare between a revolutionary army and the Manchurian gov't army - that part of their story makes sense to me.

***

Good points yet we must remember that the TWC story was that LJ modified it when Chan was peeking thru the fence and only kept the real version for his family. It was supposed to be LJ who developed the modified version and since we know that there are more than one lineage from Wong Wah Bo doing the same stuff and other lineages from Hung Suen doing the same stuff then we may have to look a bit closer in history than the Red Boat. We also know that part of the TWC story was that the pigeon toed horse was taught/modified by LJ to make it less effective but if you look back at most southern Chinese arts (even okinawan arts) we can see that the small knee in horse has always been around. Basically, if you took the San Chin horse and dragged one foot back (plus include the Siu component) you would have the YJKYM. JR

***

So you and I are really back to square one - it would seem.
If it wasn't WWB then it was someone else teaching (and passing on) TWC/HFY at that time period...or maybe it was him but he purposely left "no paper trail" other than the the trail that led to Leung Jan having two versions and only teaching the TWC/HFY version to his son(s)...IMO

***

I don’t think we are back at square one. We have made pretty good progress with finding out what is starting to look more likely versus less likely. We are on the right track! We know that it is more likely that it may not be LJ or his family with all the known info. that has been discussed and we also know it could be more likely that it comes from another source and has a fair amount of YMWC blended into it. Now, with that known info. we can start to eliminate the less likely. The theory you are trying to present would only be a theory and unfortunately we should try and get some evidence to support it as of right now the evidence we have regarding WWB/LJ/FBC/YK can all be shown and when trying to prove something the known out-weighs the unknown. JR

***

IT'S ABOUT THE FOOTWORK...William Cheung has always said that one version has the footwork and the other system does not...and by that I mean that TWC has MUCH footwork that other Wing Chun systems do not (except HFY - from what I've seen of it so far). I'm not saying other wc systems don't have footwork...it is a matter of degree...

But the FOOTWORK that William Cheung talks about, and in the article about HFY that I quoted on the TWC & HFY thread - both systems are saying the same thing about the FOOTWORK...that modifications were made...and in the missing footwork we not only find the parallel and cross rules of foot placement, the sidestepping moves - of which the T-stance is only one of many different variations...we not only find the Entry technique (obviously a piece of footwork)...the blindside strategy -the culmination of and primary purpose for the missing footwork...
but also the turning of the centerline to face the point of contact...ie.- dual central (center) lines..one to block on and one to strike back on...

THIS FOOTWORK and its consequences and ramifications either just don't exist in other wc systems or are not really things that other systems pay much attention to...

BUT I KEEP POINTING TO THEM because they are what the whole matter is really about...this "footwork thing" is TOO intricate and frankly TOO valuable and TOO widespread (meaning it exists in both TWC and HFY)...to say that it was made up by William Cheung...or made up by Garrett Gee...IMO it had to have a much longer history - which means, I believe, that somebody back there (in WWB's time) - had to be teaching it.

***

Ok! Very important thoughts and valid from the TWC pov! So, we will have to give (or go back to) a few what if’s since there is not much info. to show this being 100% true yet. What if TWC was YM’s own development/work as the art is mainly YMWC with certain things stressed? Such as the footwork, which would mainly follow the knife footwork patterns and he told Cheung sifu a made up story? What if Cheung sifu really did get it from Gee’s sihing and combined it with his YMWC knowledge/methods? What if YM or Cheung sifu did combine PSWC footwork/principles (which does include flanking emphacis) with his YMWC since PSWC does have similar foot placement as both standard WC and TWC just done with the small component? JR

I believe since we have a fair amount of more/less likely info. we should now eliminate and start looking into different views rather than the standard Bik/Yip etc.. More research into this Sihing of Gee should be done and other stuff. Lots have been discussed and good progress has been made. I appreciate your help and info.. JR


Regards,

[yuanfen]

Curious- why does TWC depend so much on their version Of the Leung Bik story- shouldnt all the TWC footwork and mechanics rise or fall on their own merits?
Same goes for debunking Leung Bik'sexistence.
The efficacy of what we do and their underlyong principles
seem to me to be far more interesting for discussion.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Jim Roselando:

I've committed this "heresy" before and I guess I have say it again (Vicky - close your ears!)...

I don't believe the "Leung Jan made the whole modified thing up" story, myself...I think he probably just decided to teach his other "more civilian" version of wing chun when confronted with the reality of having to teach Chan Wah Shun - and I believe this precisely because this other version exists in other places.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Yuanfen:

But you already said that you have no use for the efficacy of the TWC footwork ?!

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Victor!


I've committed this "heresy" before and I guess I have say it again (Vicky - close your ears!)...

I don't believe the "Leung Jan made the whole modified thing up" story, myself...I think he probably just decided to teach his other "more civilian" version of wing chun when confronted with the reality of having to teach Chan Wah Shun - and I believe this precisely because this other version exists in other places.

***

Thru our informative discussions we have acknowledged certain things as more likely or less likely with the known and proven facts that we can take into account. At the moment we would have to say that our sharing with each other did benefit the sorting thru of story and facts.

1) We know for sure (do to the known facts/info that can be proven) that the now being called Civilian (aka modified) version of WC can be traced back to the Red Boat thru numerous lineages and can be found within the family of the great Dr Leung Jan. That is proven or factual info..

2) We also know that TWC is a combo of YMWC with the other elements that are more similar to HFY. That is a proven or factual info..

3) Unless someone else in the Leung family (or Gee sifu's family) comes forward to show more people preserving this type of WC then we may only say it is more likely that TWC is an art that developed later in WC history than you would like to believe or comes from HFY.

All this info. doesn't make anything better or worst but with what can be proven as factual or known info. this will be the more likely no matter how hard you would like to believe it not to be. As more info. surfaces we can discuss further.


Thank you for the discussion I believe it was truly worthy and helped all readers hear/read two peoples informative discussion.


Regards,

[WCis4me]

Hi Jim,
I am good. Thanks for asking! How are you?

Jim Wrote:

Question for you? What does TWC history say the reason is for Leung Jan returning back to his home village?
Good question. The answer is I don't know. Probably why my curiosity was peaked when you mentioned 'secret' in depth knowledge. Sigung Cheung doesn't discuss it on his website, nor have I ever even thought of talking to him about something like that, as I am pretty sure he doesn't like or find interesting all the political history stuff (otherwise he would be on here to tell us all lol). He has said what he knows to be the truth, I believe him to be earnest in how he has described the origin of TWC, and doubt there is much more discussion to be had with him on the point. I think he isn't really a man who will go on and on , talking about the same thing, rehashing everything. I think it would make him rather impatient. I think he would see it as a complete waste of time. This is my own opinion, just from my personal perspective of him, others with a more intimate knowledge of him might disagree with me.
Regardless, frankly I would feel dumb asking. I have read his site, his book (My Life With Wing Chun), watched some videos of him, I have spent time with him (although we didn't discuss history), and if I don't get his side of things, or what he is about, or what are the important issues to him, or what he has to say about the history or what he has to say or show about TWC from that, I would be an idiot.
I did ask Phil though, reluctantly, as I know how he feels about all this history talk, and he says he doesn't know either, it isn't something that has ever felt the need to discuss with his Sifu.

Jim Wrote:

Good points yet we must remember that the TWC story was that LJ modified it when Chan was peeking thru the fence and only kept the real version for his family.
The story that I quoted from about Chan Wah Shun getting caught watching Leung Jan teaching wasn't from a TWC affiliated site. In fact I have seen that story a few times and it was never from a TWC site. Not to say, of course, that some TWC folks or others don't believe the story.

Hi Victor,

I don't believe the "Leung Jan made the whole modified thing up" story, myself...I think he probably just decided to teach his other "more civilian" version of wing chun when confronted with the reality of having to teach Chan Wah Shun
<<<everyone hears the sound of a loud thud as Vicky's head hits the desk>>>

Everyone,
I have entertained the thought that perhaps Yip Man told many of his students different stories, and perhaps he trained people differently for different reasons, and that doesn't make anyone wrong, or making up stuff, just believers of a man they adored and respected and his descendents (blood and kung fu). Everyone believes what they believe with the same fervor that it had to be handed down, through the generations and borne out of something stronger than simply making stuff up to look good or claim grandmastership. As we all know there are many people who claim to be grandmasters so why would one guy make the stuff up. Why would he say he was told that, if he knew it was a lie and might be proven wrong and be embarassed (after all we all agree he is a very smart man who certainly would have been able to see or think about the consequences of such actions), when he could have been just like Bruce Lee (his buddy and similar mindset) admit he created a system (even boldly say a better one)and be open about things that he added or created (like he has with some of his stuff). I mean he could see it didn't hurt Bruce Lee at all to do that. I have seen letters from them in the 60's, coupled with that it just doesn't sound like a rational, logical approach that a smart man would take, it just doesn't wash with me that it was something that William Cheung simply made up.

In summation,
I believe that Yip Man told Sigung Cheung that he was the inheritor, that is why William Cheung believes it to be true (there could have been many reasons why this happened).
I believe that Yip Man did teach William Cheung different stuff to suit him and his fighting abilities. Who knows maybe Yip Man was just testing the stuff out himself and decided to use Sigung Cheung as a test subject.
I am leaning towards the belief that Leung Bik did in fact exist, however I am really not sure in what kind of context he was involved, simply because it is such a murky mire of conflicting stories.
I do believe that Sigung Cheung did in fact hear the story from Yip Man, and that he does in fact believe what his Sifu told him as he greatly adored and respected him, as he should have.
I firmly believe that TWC is an excellent form of WC.
Finally, I do not believe that my Sigung has been, or is, or has ever intended to be, a bold face liar. (that statement is not in any way directed to anyone other than those who think that he is, they have their opinion, I have mine).

There we have it. Of course I could be completely wrong on all or part of this, or I could be completely right on all or part of this. However, it is just sharing my POV and where I stand on these issues at this point.

Regards,
Vicky

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Vicky,


I am good. Thanks for asking! How are you?

Not bad. The weather is getting better (finally) and I am going on vacation in two weeks! Life is good. JR


Good question. The answer is I don't know. Probably why my curiosity was peaked when you mentioned 'secret' in depth knowledge. Sigung Cheung doesn't discuss it on his website, nor have I ever even thought of talking to him about something like that, as I am pretty sure he doesn't like or find interesting all the political history stuff (otherwise he would be on here to tell us all lol). He has said what he knows to be the truth, I believe him to be earnest in how he has described the origin of TWC, and doubt there is much more discussion to be had with him on the point. I think he isn't really a man who will go on and on , talking about the same thing, rehashing everything. I think it would make him rather impatient. I think he would see it as a complete waste of time. This is my own opinion, just from my personal perspective of him, others with a more intimate knowledge of him might disagree with me.

Hey! I agree with you that he could have been told that and could believe it. Nobody says that can't be one what if scenerio? There are also other posibilities that may hold some weight and when it comes to CMA we must always take into account the "protect the rice bowl" theory. Also, just because someone is a good sifu/fighter it does not mean they are knowledgeable in WC history/lineages so what may be considerred true for one person may not be for someone else. None of this stuff would really matter if all lineages/approaches were treated equally. JR

Regardless, frankly I would feel dumb asking. I have read his site, his book (My Life With Wing Chun), watched some videos of him, I have spent time with him (although we didn't discuss history), and if I don't get his side of things, or what he is about, or what are the important issues to him, or what he has to say about the history or what he has to say or show about TWC from that, I would be an idiot.
I did ask Phil though, reluctantly, as I know how he feels about all this history talk, and he says he doesn't know either, it isn't something that has ever felt the need to discuss with his Sifu.

Its not important if all were treated equally but when some say this is original and this is modified/civilian/inferior (less complete) then unfortunately we need to sort thru the known facts to find out what is more likely. Which is what Victor and I did very well I believe. Plus! The emergence of Koo Lo WC, and Koo Lo historical info., puts a huge cramp on the story that was presented as the technical info. can be cross checked, and the historical info. can be cross checked, to find out more with regards to Leung Jan and other aspects. All you need to do is look at the known verifiable lineages and cross check. Add that in with the known signature stuff from lineages and thats where you begin. JR


I firmly believe that TWC is an excellent form of WC.

As long as we are all happy with what we do then that is all that matters! Nobody should place anyone higher or lower on the food chain and we should all share with each other to help each other grow and preserve the WC traditions. That would serve the WC community better than placing unjustified names in front lineages which causes no good. And, as you can see from reading this thread, that theory cannot be proven with evidence to be true but the reverse info. can.

I have to run but appreciate the chat!


Regards,

[BAI HE]

"Not bad. The weather is getting better"

Thanks for jinxing us you knob.

The weather's been better for a scant 24 hr's and the mosquitoes
are really going apesheet this year!

[Jim Roselando]

Bai He!


2 days + with no rain! I call that some serious improvement!

Lets hope your right and I didn't jink us! uggg This has been one hell of a year for us northeast folks!


See ya,

[Phil Redmond]

Sure TWC has footwork that I dont have. Thank heavens!
Joy, I was going to PM this to you but I didn't see that option on your post. I don't know what to say about a grown man going there. I try to be civil with people. I won't stoop to bashing other arts. Then I could be wrong. Maybe you were joking....
Phil

[yuanfen]

Phil- my email is <joy@azwingchun.com>

It used to be on my profile but I began to get offers of breast enlargement pills from folks who thought that "Joy" was female!<g>. I get it both ways- male and female enhancement schemes!

Some distinctions are important... not doing TWC and saying that I prefer not to do TWC footwork is not necessarily bashing. If
something works for someone- Victor or yourself- I leave it alone
and dont impose my footwork on others unasked. My "tone" was light and kidding- but those things often dont tanslate on the net-
unless folks have met each other or know enough about the other. Sorry- if you got the impression that I was "bashing".

I can give good reasons why TWC footwork doesnt work for me...
by trial and error- I concluded that the T stance is too unstable
and weak- specially if the other fella is a takedown artist...makes things easier for the fella. The T works ok for straight forward and back sport fencing moves

Given the subject of the thread that you started- honest comments on strengths and weaknesss of something in fighting-
is reasonable IMO...wouldn't you say?

[WCis4me]

Hi Jim,

Jim Wrote:

Not bad. The weather is getting better (finally) and I am going on vacation in two weeks! Life is good. JR
That is good to hear!

Its not important if all were treated equally but when some say this is original and this is modified/civilian/inferior (less complete) then unfortunately we need to sort thru the known facts to find out what is more likely. Which is what Victor and I did very well I believe. Plus! The emergence of Koo Lo WC, and Koo Lo historical info., puts a huge cramp on the story that was presented as the technical info. can be cross checked, and the historical info. can be cross checked, to find out more with regards to Leung Jan and other aspects. All you need to do is look at the known verifiable lineages and cross check. Add that in with the known signature stuff from lineages and thats where you begin.
Good points. However, It could still come out as subjective at best.
The thing is though, if Yip Man taught it to him (which I believe he did), told him it was different (which you can see it is), told him that it came from Leung Bik et al, and told him that was the truth and he believes it, that doesn't make him at fault or wrong.
If you really look into that train of thought......What if TWC doesn't pan out as coming from Leung Jan? It still came from Yip Man (whether it was a fable told to William Cheung or not, and even if it was something that Yip Man had evolved himself), who was direct lineage of Leung Jan, and Yip Man was/is thought of as the grandmaster of WC. In that context TWC is still a system of WC that was passed down through the lineage of Leung Jan, Chan Wah Shun (and others), Yip Man, William Cheung (not saying I am discounting the Leung Bik side of things as of yet just thinking of possible scenarios). Holding that it is a valid system of WC as it came from Yip Man, even though it is a variation, means we cannot simply discount it, and all forms taught by Yip Man (and others that can verify back to his ancestors), no matter where they came from before, should be respected as being a valid WC lineages/systems and should not be discounted or attacked from anyone even if the relationship is only 'cousins'. We really need to find some common ground and a happy place to be in to bring this family back together IMO.
<<<gosh I hope that makes as much sense when its read as it did when I wrote it lol, its been a LONG day, bear with me :)>>>

As long as we are all happy with what we do then that is all that matters! Nobody should place anyone higher or lower on the food chain and we should all share with each other to help each other grow and preserve the WC traditions
I agree.

That would serve the WC community better than placing unjustified names in front lineages which causes no good.
Being told by the grandmaster and your Sifu (Yip Man), that it is what it is and then repeating that after his death as promised to him, and trying to share the wealth of it, is not unjustified IMO.

Wouldn't it be ironic if it was all a big misunderstanding that got way out of context? It would be even better to find out that was in fact the truth of it as there would finally be some bridges being built back up.

Again, everything I have said in this post is just me thinking of alternative conclusions/reasoning. I don't know that any of my ideas are truth or not and don't claim them to be.

Regards,
Vicky

[Tom Kagan]

And now we hear that Yip Man visited someone six times a year who knew wing chun ? (Why would he do that?...if not to learn something from him?)

Good question. I can't say I share your conclusion, though.

I would never make such an assumption about the reasons why someone would visit another when I did not know them very well. And even then, I'd be hard pressed to even hint at such a thing because there are too many other perfectly valid reasons. If I were to use use your reasoning, then I would have draw a similar conclusion about why a person would continue to visit my SiHing in Sunset Park, Brooklyn.

With all due respect, please do not automatically assume I am referring to you in the above example. If I did that (even for this hypothetical example), that would be disrespectful to you. Though, to be honest, I did pick the above example with someone in mind. But, it wasn't you, and you'll just have to believe me when I say I was referring to someone else - heaven knows I have enough SiHings to gossip about and to be annoyed with me in return (including one just a wee bit west of NY to whom you've taken a strong disliking). :eek:

Also, with all due respect, I'd like to underscore the sheer beauty of Moy Yat's answer: it didn't contradict any of his SiHing's stories - Not William Cheung's, not Wang Kiu's, not one. Everyone's beliefs, denials, and/or any other claim survived intact. Not only did Sifu give a direct answer to the interviewer's question, but his answer was obtuse enough for each party to save face (except for those claiming the 1997 seminar in NYC, but Vicky's claim of a fake death handled that. :) )

If I told you it was Miguel Hernandez who translated English to Spanish (and vice versa) for the interviewer from Spain, would you believe me?

If I told you the gentleman in question from the New Territories was one of a small group of people who helped Yip Man escape mainland China years before, would you believe me?


By the way, Rene Ritchie's "Complete" book has an entire chapter written about the lineage of Ving Tsun practiced by Garrett Gee. It was written before the name change, though. Still, it's another source of information on his art besides the magazine article to which you previously referred.

[WCis4me]

Hi Joy,

Just a quick question out of curiosity, no intention of disrespect or argument,

I can give good reasons why TWC footwork doesnt work for me...
by trial and error- I concluded that the T stance is too unstable
and weak- specially if the other fella is a takedown artist...makes things easier for the fella. The T works ok for straight forward and back sport fencing moves

You say trial and error, have you had proper training in it from a qualified TWC practitioner? If not, then perhaps that is why you came to that conclusion?

Regards,
Vicky

[WCis4me]

Hi Tom,

(except for those claiming the 1997 seminar in NYC, but Vicky's claim of a fake death handled that. )
AHHHHHAAAAAA!!!!! See something good did come of my incoherant ranting and meshing of various theories after being driven to temporary insanity ;)
Remember though, that was IF I was to say something like that which we all know I didn't.

BTW if I was to say that these little tidbits you are giving out have me totally intrigued, would that mean that I was sick and twisted and had finally succumbed to the 'dark side' that King Monkey so dillegently tried to save me from?:D

Regards,
Vicky

[FIRE HAWK]

j

[EnterTheWhip]

Originally posted by Phil Redmond
I won't stoop to bashing other arts. "Other art"? Don't you presume to do the same one? Oh that's right, you don't....

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Vicky!



Good points. However, It could still come out as subjective at best.

The better way to put it would be "More Likely or Less Likely" IMO.

The thing is though, if Yip Man taught it to him (which I believe he did), told him it was different (which you can see it is), told him that it came from Leung Bik et al, and told him that was the truth and he believes it, that doesn't make him at fault or wrong.

Ok. That is a possible "what if" and at the moment it just falls in that category with "peoples beliefs" rather than known factual info. that can be verified.

If you really look into that train of thought......What if TWC doesn't pan out as coming from Leung Jan? It still came from Yip Man (whether it was a fable told to William Cheung or not, and even if it was something that Yip Man had evolved himself), who was direct lineage of Leung Jan, and Yip Man was/is thought of as the grandmaster of WC.

Well, if YM developed it thru his own ideas, and experiences with other MA, then that would mean YM was the Jong Si of that particular version (TWC) and even tho he comes thru LJ lineage (as many do) we would also be able to say while it still retains some elements of LJWC in it it is a modifed version of WC. If that was the case! YM was grandmaster of only his school/clan. WC does not, nor did it ever, have one sole grandmaster! If we went by seniority then Fung Chun would probally be the senior ranking WC man in the world! That of course doesn't mean anything but rank and more importantly would be skill but its fun to take a look at!

Lets look at some lineages;


WWB-Leung Jan-Wong Wah Sam-Fung Chun

WWB-Fok Bo Chuen-Yuen Kay San-Sum Nung (now deceased)

WWB-Leung Jan-Chan Wah Shun-Ng Chung So-Yip Man (now deceased)

Yik Kam-Cho Shun-Cho Dak Shing-Cho Hung Choi-Hendrik Santo

Hung Gun Biu-Cheung Gung-Want Ting-Wang Ming-Garratte Gee


In that context TWC is still a system of WC that was passed down through the lineage of Leung Jan, Chan Wah Shun (and others), Yip Man, William Cheung (not saying I am discounting the Leung Bik side of things as of yet just thinking of possible scenarios). Holding that it is a valid system of WC as it came from Yip Man, even though it is a variation, means we cannot simply discount it, and all forms taught by Yip Man (and others that can verify back to his ancestors), no matter where they came from before, should be respected as being a valid WC lineages/systems and should not be discounted or attacked from anyone even if the relationship is only 'cousins'. We really need to find some common ground and a happy place to be in to bring this family back together IMO.

That is exactly what all should do! We are all cousins!

<<<gosh I hope that makes as much sense when its read as it did when I wrote it lol, its been a LONG day, bear with me >>>

We all do WC. Nobody is better or worst. All is good and its up to the individual to make it work. Some individuals are better than others but when labels are placed, and stories are used for superiority theories, that is where the diversion begins rather than the unity.

Being told by the grandmaster and your Sifu (Yip Man), that it is what it is and then repeating that after his death as promised to him, and trying to share the wealth of it, is not unjustified IMO.

Agreed! If that is the case. Once again that is one of the possible "what if's"?

Wouldn't it be ironic if it was all a big misunderstanding that got way out of context? It would be even better to find out that was in fact the truth of it as there would finally be some bridges being built back up.

Sure. That would be the best thing for the entire WC community! We could do this like the police do and strap each lineage holder to a lie detector machine and ask all of the lineage holders numerous questions but fat chance that would happen! I would ask 3 simple questions to all lineage holder;

1) The story your lineage/family promotes, is that what you were told by your sifu?

2) The story your lineage/family promotes, is that your own story?

3) The story your lineage/family promotes, have you verified it with your other family/brothers to see if it checks out?


Again, everything I have said in this post is just me thinking of alternative conclusions/reasoning. I don't know that any of my ideas are truth or not and don't claim them to be.

I fully understand! We all look into stuff, read stuff, think about stuff and decide for ourselves what sounds to be more likely or less likely. Some just like to believe the stories which is ok but when trying to prove something that is not good enough.


I have to run but thanks for the conversation!


Regards,

[reneritchie]

Jim,

Hendrik's lineage is Yik Kam - Cho Shun - Cho Shing - Cho On & Cho Chuen - Cho Hung-Choi - Hendrik

Honestly, and un-PC, most of these discussions are useless because they come at things from a Western perspective. In China, you didn't take credit for your own innovations. It was considered arrogant and rude. If you came up with a new way of doing something, you credited your sifu anyway, and if it was very different, you claimed you got it from a secret monk or wandering taoist, or dwarf named Xu, or drunkan immortals, or in a dream, etc. etc. Its just the way it was.

To talk about "lying" or "making things up" or what not is to completely ignore the very different culture from which our family of arts descend.

Some of us were fortunate enough to belong to other lineages and have a fairly good idea of other branches for a while. Others are just finding out via video or the internet, but the fact remains that within a fairly diverse sampling pool we consistently see the same core of WCK, be it from Wong Wah-Bo's lineage or Yik Kam's. This doesn't mean there can't ve other variations, for example from Dai Fa Min Kam's, but it means that within each variation, there will still be a core, and anything deviating from that core probably doesn't descend from that lineage (it descends from another or is a divergence from that lineage).

People will still cling to old stories because they feel comfortable, they have an ego investment, or there are financial or face reasons for doing so, or loyalty issues. That's fine, but they should at least classify them as beliefs and not allow them to cause the petty political problems that have so often plagued our art.

And, of course, the bottom line remains that while stories are wonderful, at the end, all you have is the art itself, and whether you can use it. If something comes from the Jade Emperor himself, and it sucks, or you suck with it, how much does the origin matter?

[yuanfen]

Vicky- I didnt ignore your question. A son has just hogged the computer for over 24 hours!
When i said that I did not adopt the TWC basic stances and footwork you asked in essence -based on what...

1. No I did not go toa certified TWC instructor to learn the TWC system and then comment.

2. If anyone is happy doing TWC, I really have no problem with that.

3.I have worked out with people who have been in TWC. I have read quite a few of William Cheung's books and videos and articles. Years ago, I compared and experimented with what I was learning with the widest array of alternatives that I could find. I concluded that the TWC stance and footwork IMO(important qualifier) had more disadvantages than advantages for me. I have mentioned them before- problems of stability and
problems with "micro-motions" for close quarters work.

4. Others may and obviously do see things there that I dont.
Hence differnt flavors of tea. In art and even in science- the observer plays a role.

Fair enough?

Regards, Joy

[Jim Roselando]

Hey Rene,


I totally agree with all you have said! Yet, sometimes this stuff needs be sorted thru when people make statements about what is original/not orignal to show how people should have evidence/proof before spreading info..

I am done with this conversation as I think enough info. has been shown to show what is more realistic and unless some new info. comes out to support views there is nothing more to talk about.


I have to run!


Peace,

[WCis4me]

Hi Joy,

Vicky- I didnt ignore your question. A son has just hogged the computer for over 24 hours!
I didn't think you had or would ignore my question, and boy can I relate to the computer being hogged by family members. ) Thanks for getting back to me.

I concluded that the TWC stance and footwork IMO(important qualifier) had more disadvantages than advantages for me.
I see. Sounds reasonable to me. If it wasn't for you then it wasn't for you, can't find fault in that.

4. Others may and obviously do see things there that I dont.
Makes sense as well. People do things and want things and feel things in very different ways. For example (probably not the greatest one but it came to mind first lol) not everyone likes spinning rides at a fair but they love the rest of the fair, others love spinning rides but hate the rest of the fair. Different strokes for different folks.

Fair enough?
Absolutely. I haven't had the opportunity to really know your background so wasn't sure how/why you had come to that decision. Thanks again for your reply.

Take care,
Regards,
Vicky

[Phil Redmond]

"Other art"? Don't you presume to do the same one? Oh that's right, you don't....
I meant to writre other arts, (all martial arts). Did I make a typo?