PDA

View Full Version : Yip Man taught William Cheung "real" wing chun?



fgxpanzerz
10-23-2001, 05:33 AM
How is William Cheung's wing chun different from the classical style Yip Man taught to his students in Hong Kong? Any of William's students on this message board that can answer the question?

Super-Fist
10-23-2001, 06:35 AM
Hmph! Only God Knows. It has been said that Yip Man taught several versions of wing chun. Who knows what's real or what's fake? On top of that some versions are superior to others...especially in terms of application.

Kung Lek
10-23-2001, 06:44 AM
it's all real.
Seeing as Cheung was a long time student, Yip sifu likely shared more in depth knowledge of the broader Shaolin Kung Fu with him.

Wing Chun being but a facet in the Gem that is Shaolin Kung Fu :D

peace

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

joy chaudhuri
10-23-2001, 07:17 AM
Curious what Kung Lek means by "a long time student". How long is long time? He was a teenager or close to it I believe when he moved from HK to Australia.

Watchman
10-23-2001, 07:19 AM
Stop trolling. ;)

Kung Lek
10-23-2001, 07:40 AM
Watchman
sorry, I'll shut up and sit down now :D

peace you wing chunners!

Kung Lek

Martial Arts Links (http://members.home.net/kunglek)

EmptyCup
10-23-2001, 07:49 PM
Cheung's wing chun has many differences, in fact his wing chun looks more like the wing chun Yip Man taught in China earlier on than the stuff he taught later in HK. Cheung's Chum Kiu, Biu Tze and Sword forms are totally different than everybody else's. True, everybody who learned under Yip Man has different forms practically but share common ground. Cheung's look like another style!!!

As for structural differences, his tan sau has no angle at the wrist - it just goes diagonally up. His bong sau also has no angle at the wrist but is strictly diagonal. He does not believe in the pigeon toed stance but advocates a parallel stance. Most of his moves are very circular in motion and his concepts are slightly different. He favors attacking from outside gates, flanking his opponents. So even if he was inside, he would somehow do another five moves so that he can attack on the outside instead! He doesn't like attacking and blocking simultaneuosly but blocks first and then attacks for the most part.

As for the whole "I was taught true wing chun" claim, let's not go there now :cool:

But I'll just say that Yip Man didn't teach EITHER of his sons Yip Ching or Yip Chun Cheung's version...that should tell you something considering Yip Man was VERY old fashioned regarding his teachings...

reneritchie
10-23-2001, 08:05 PM
Hey EC,

I don't find Cheung's WCK looks much like Yip Man's Foshan students. Though both groups have developed their own distinctiveness since '49, I find Yip Man's Foshan students look pretty much like his early HK students. More or less what you find in the rest of Foshan WCK.

Rgds,

RR

EmptyCup
10-23-2001, 08:24 PM
Rene...look at the Ving Tsun Athletic Association lineage book. The black one. Look at the article on "tradional" versus "reformed". The structures of some of the blocks look a lot like William's.

reneritchie
10-23-2001, 08:35 PM
EC,

Will do (soon as I get home). In the meantime, check out this article (http://www.wingchunkuen.com/archives/readings/readings_yip_frearson01.shtml), which includes a couple pictures of Lun Gai sifu.

Rgds,

RR

fa_jing
10-23-2001, 10:03 PM
I was thinking, if the story Cheung tells has any truth to it, one would notice a similarity between Leung Bik's Wing Chun and the Gu Lao style WC, taught by Leung Bik's father Leung Jan to villagers in his native Gu Lao. I had a brief exposure to Cheung Style WC a few years ago, and all I know of Gu Lao style comes from the articles on Rene's unequaled web site. I did notice the following two similarities:
1. Both styles turn in the middle of the foot.
2. Both sytles emphasize fighting from the sitting horse (turning) stance, rather than the forward stance.

Any comments from the more knowledgeable?
-FJ

reneritchie
10-23-2001, 10:17 PM
Fa-jing,

I've seen several different branches of Gulao now and, format aside, they still strike me as much closer to Foshan WCK in most respects than to William Cheung's system.

Rgds,

RR

EmptyCup
10-23-2001, 10:25 PM
I've read some articles from Robert Chu, who learned the Gu Lao style. If my memory serves correct, the Gu Lao was a collection of pre-fixed techniques into a system composed of 40 or so techniques. From what I've seen, they don't look anything at all like William's stuff. My sifu was a closed door student to Yip Man and got private lessons in HK. He said that Yip Man once told him 70% of the Wing Chun he did was from Leung Bik and not Chun Wa Shun. Chun's line continues to this day and his wing chun is definitely different than HK style fast hands wing chun. Yip Man obviously changed many of the techniques. He altered the dummy and improved it as well as chi sau. He made that more aggressive. The flowery movements and tai chi like techniques he removed. The result was a faster, more linear and ultimately more aggressive wing chun. For certain the wing chun he taught in HK was ALREADY ALTERED. But altered because of Leung Bik, not the Chun Wa Shun version to hide Leung Bik's version. Do you guys understand? William claimed that Yip Man taught everybody else the version he learned form Chun Wa Shun, the "inferior" version Leung Jan taught Chun. William claims that Yip Man passed down the "true traditional" version to him, the version that Leung Jan's son, Leung Bik taught Yip Man. That is not true. The wing chun Yip Man taught in HK was predominately the LEUNG BIK version. That is also the wing chun he TAUGHT his sons.

reneritchie
10-23-2001, 10:44 PM
Hi EC,

Basically, when Leung Jan retired to his hometown of Gulao, Heshan, he took on four or so students. 70 or so years old at the time, instead of teaching them kuen to (boxing sets), he taught them san sik (separate forms) which supposedly consisted of what he felt were the most important core movements from the 3 sets, and what experience had taught him were the most practical. These were then practiced solo (stationary and with steps), on the dummy, with a partner, and with the double knives, making it a fairly concise system to learn.

I'm not sure about % of what Yip sifu learned from whom. Some of his students have stories about that but then you look at the Chan descended lines in China and the stories aren't consistent. To me, Yip Man's WCK looks fairly consistent with the Chan Wah-Shun/Ng Jung-So lineage. The Chan family themselves, nowadays claim that Chan Wah-Shun learned a secret extra 3 palm forms from Leung Jan, extra fist sets, weapon sets, etc. but Chan Yiu-Min's students (eg. Jiu Chao) also seem remarkably close to the Chan Wah-Shun/Ng Jung-So line (and Chan Wah-Shun/Yip Man line).

Personally, none of the stories about secret or altered this or that seem to ring true. WCK is more or less WCK. No big secrets or surprises.

I'd suspect Yip Man sifu pretty much taught what he learned, developed through his own experiences for the needs of his students.

Rgds,

RR

fa_jing
10-23-2001, 11:21 PM
When thinking about Sifu Cheung's claims, I am stuck between two points:

1. Chueng's WC actually is not sooo different from Yip Man's HK WC. But many (his students) say that it is more sophisticated. From what I've seen of the forms, they train more elements. I am guessing that Sifu Chueng did not make this stuff up, otherwise the style would have been debunked by its many would-be detractors. Either the style was Yip Man's secret, or Chueng added existing WC techniques to the forms, or Cheung added elements from some other secret teacher he had, or Chueng was a creative genius - I am doubtful of the last possibility, seeing that WC was being developed over generations, I am doubting that one man could come up with such a distinctive variation.

Yet --

2. I can't think of any reason Yip Man would withold this information, from everyone he ever taught, from all the wing chun masters he knew in Fatshan, from his sons -- then only teach one student, not even indicating that Cheung had the true style before Yip's death. What possible motivation would Yip man have to do such a thing? Perhaps there is no one WC style, only several variations that exist. I heard a strange claim from my Chueng Style teacher that Yip Man didn't want his sons to fight, thus did not teach them the true style -- couldn't Yip have found some other way to protect them? It is made to sound that knowledge of the secret true style of Wing Chun would invite death from the Triads - how would the Triads know the difference, anyway? And why, in fact, did Yip Man not name a successor upon his death? He must have known a controversy would ensue.

Chueng's claim that his system is more for the smaller practitioner, maybe true. But how does that fit into Wing Chun history as the original style? I think it is very much in doubt that this style was created for women, to be able to defeat larger opponents. The legend of the nun and the Bean-curd seller, IMHO, is doubtful. While there are indications that this was a cover story for the real, anti-Qing revolutionary nature of the art.

We may never know the answers, but I remain hopeful. Someone outside of the known Wing Chun clans may come out of the woodwork, and share historical knowledge with the world. Until then, I leave the debate to others - I feel it is secondary to my training. What works for the individual is the most important.

-FJ

fgxpanzerz
10-23-2001, 11:31 PM
I have this book and one of the chapters is named "The Deadliest Man in the World." The whole chapter is about how Yip Man taught William CHeung traditional wing chun while teaching everyone else modified wing chun. The chapter went on to detail how William won the Hong Kong tournaments, or something like that, beating people with much more experience. The author acredited his success to the version of wing chun Yip Man taught him. AT the end of the chapter, it says, "Some people refer to William Cheung as the 'deadliest man in the world.'

By the way, I heard that both of Yip Man's sons dont know sh*t about Wing chun. Dont know if that's true or not.

fa_jing
10-23-2001, 11:40 PM
Does anybody know what Sifu Hawkins Chueng thinks of his cousin William's claims?
-FJ

EmptyCup
10-24-2001, 12:12 AM
I never knew that Hawkins was William's cousin!!! I'll ask my sifu about that as he and the both of them go way back...especially Hawkins.

Watchman
10-24-2001, 12:19 AM
I heard a strange claim from my Chueng Style teacher that Yip Man didn't want his sons to fight, thus did not teach them the true style

By the way, I heard that both of Yip Man's sons dont know sh*t about Wing chun. Dont know if that's true or not.

Hey, I heard from my grandmother's second cousin's aunt's 3rd grade teacher's mailman that the world was flat! I'm not sure what to believe about that. :rolleyes:

Martin Foot
10-24-2001, 03:45 AM
My Sifu (Derek Jones) trained at Victor Kans for 8 years, & is considered to be by many as Victor’s best ever student. In that period he fought many many times, including a series of bare-knuckle prise money fights against skilled & much larger fighters. He found he needed to make many major adjustments to the system he was being taught for it to work in reality, especially the Footwork.
After Derek left Victor's he went to New York & took seminars with William Cheung, & found what William's footwork patterns to be very similar to the working footwork patterns & principles he had developed himself. Derek also found that Williams’s forms were not only different, but also have direct application, which in Derek’s words is lacking in Victors teaching. Derek took Williams forms & improved on them using the filters of his own personal experience.
The facts are that Victor & William had the same Sifu, & Derek considered Williams technique i.e. structure & principles to be not only different, but also superior to Victors.


Martin Foot
Body Mind & Spirit Kung Fu

EmptyCup
10-24-2001, 06:38 AM
I don't agree with William Cheung but I do acknowledge that when he was in his prime, he dropped many an opponent. His name is still legendary. I've heard from those who have seen his fights first-hand and I don't doubt his skill as a fighter. However, that doesn't mean I agree with his approach. But then again Wong Shun Leung had terrible form ;)

TeqUnique
10-24-2001, 08:13 AM
Gong sau - Talking hands
= CAN YOU DO IT? DOES YOUR TEKNIQUE REALLY WORK IN A REAL LIFE SITUATION? DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS?

If Mr.Cheung can make his wing chun work 10/10 against any opponent, does it help improveing your skills? If u can make his tan sau work for you 10/10 on the street...now thats good, if not..its not good. Simple.
Beleive in the system and know that it has no limits as limits are only an created by the mind or the teachers mind.
The most important thing is: How good are your own standard.

Less is more
Short is long
Slow is fast
This is the key to all understanding.
- Lao Tzu

Phil Redmond
10-24-2001, 12:58 PM
Yuan Fen. to answer your question.
William Cheung started Wing Chun at 10 years old part time. At 14 years old he trained full time. Yes, he left Hong Kong at 18 years old. He lived with Yip Man for 3 or 4 years. If you were trying to say that age was a factor in his ability to use his Wing Chun then you must know that on his way from Hong Kong to Australia, he was attacked by 10 or 15 'grown' men armed to the teeth with edged weapons, and fought them effectivley. My point is that since the 70's when I started WC I've seen the bickering inherent in our style. But the bottom line is, WC is a fighting art. I don't care if William Cheung learned WC from an alien, or made it up himself. It works. I don't see ANY other of the WC styles that have the fighting theories, techniques, and principles I've learned from Sifu Cheung. (And I've studied from a few) I didn't study WC to be a philosopher, or historian. I can learn those things eslewhere. I study for combat. How do you test your art? A painter has to paint, a swimmer has to swim. I'd bet that a lot of the guys who start controversy sit behind the safety of their computers and have never been in a really good street fight. I have had to teach WC in the gang ridden neighborhoods of East NY, and Bedford Styvesant, Brooklyn. And in Detroit inner city. Places where people will walk in off the streets and say that kung Fu s--t won't work in a real street fight and challenge you. Get off your butts and train. Stop the gossip. America needs more warriors.

Phil

kj
10-24-2001, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>on his way from Hong Kong to Australia, he was attacked by 10 or 15 'grown' men armed to the teeth with edged weapons, and fought them effectivley. [/quote]

Can you expound? Are we to assume this was in a single encounter and with only empty hand Wing Chun? While anything is "possible" I confess this seems a bit far-fetched. :confused:

Nichiren
10-24-2001, 01:40 PM
...he was attacked by 10 or 15 'grown' men armed to the teeth with edged weapons, and fought them effectivley.

WCFighter
10-24-2001, 02:39 PM
EmptyCup
========

Just curious.

How do you know so much about William Cheung's style ? Have you even trained in it, and if you did for how long ?
You talk like you're an expert in all flavours of Wing Chun . Unless you've trained a long time in a particular art, you should refrain from making broad statements about anything. Instead you should be asking questions politely, and ponder
about the answers you are given.

Martin Foot
===========

I enjoyed your reading your post; pretty interesting story. Didn't know that.


P Redmond
=========

You tell 'em !!!!!

"Kick his ass, Sea-Bass!" - Dumb and Dumber

popsider
10-24-2001, 02:54 PM
"He found he needed to make many major adjustments to the system he was being taught for it to work in reality, especially the Footwork. "

Is it possible to expand a bit on the differences between William C / Derek Js wing chun and Victor Kans (which I believe is similar to WSLs approach - is that right?) wing chun.

Are there any major differences you could sum up on this forum for us? Is it largely the footwork, if so what's different and what isn't?

Pops

joy chaudhuri
10-24-2001, 10:24 PM
In a very short post I merely said that William Cheung from what I
understand was a teenager when he left Hong Kong for Australia. Your own post said he was 18.On that score we are in agreement.In my post then
neither in intention nor in actuality did I criticize the person's martial abilities or whether he has a right to teach his system or whether there have been very able people in his schools.
You mention"I don't see ANY other of the WC styles that have the fighting theories, techniques, and principles I've learned from Sifu Cheung". I can understand your view. Other folks
have similar views about what they have learned
in some other lines.
Part of the old bickering was from the TWC claims about modified wing chun..Water under the bridge as far as I am concerned. You are correct:
There is a lot of bickering and gossip in wing chun. My brief post in no way was intended in that spirit. Regarding your general rhetorical question "can you use it"/ I think so- but then there is yuanfen and kismet. If I didnt think so and didnt have reasonable grounds for thinking that,
I wouldnt be doing what I do. Good wishes.

Phil Redmond
10-24-2001, 10:50 PM
Someon wrote
"Just curious.

How do you know so much about William Cheung's style ? Have you even trained in it, and if you did for how long ?
You talk like you're an expert in all flavours of Wing Chun . Unless you've trained a long time in a particular art, you should refrain from making broad statements about anything. Instead you should be asking questions politely, and ponder about the answers you are given."

Well, I'm just a beginner in Wing Chun. I've only been doing it since I got home from Vietnam in 1970. I've been practicing continously since then. Before that, I studied Shorinyu in Okinawa. As far how long I've trained in Cheung Style WC, well, I was a Sifu when I met Sifu Cheung in 1983. I've been his student since then. If you want more information on me please go to, http://www.wingchunkwoon.com. Please look at the Foreward and the History links.
And from now on I'll try to be more polite to all of you oldtimers, OK?

Now regarding the fight that I mentioned. I organized the first NYC seminar with Sifu William Cheung in 1984. A lot of WC people showed up. Robert Chu, and "Grandmaster "Philip Holder were among those in attendance. I had been a student of Duncan Leung at 3 Great Jones St. NYC until he moved to Virginia Beach. I was in the Penta Plaza Hotel lobby when Duncan Leung, Alan Lee and Sifu were talking about the old days. Duncan witnessed the fight aboard the ship. I was there. I heard them talking about the fight. Duncan Leung was a young kid on his way from Hong Kong to Australia then. He went back to Hong Kong to learn Wing Chun after that. Duncan was the one that told us about, Ah Hing and his fighting prowess. I didn't find out until years later that Ah Hing was Cheung Cheuk Hing (William Cheung). When Duncan Leung came to NYC he challenged all of the Wing Chun people there. One 'famous' sifu even changed the name of his school. Some became his students. If he said someone could fight you had to believe him. He was THE best in NYC.
On an earlier page on Duncan Leung's website he mentioned the fight also. I don't know if it's still there.

Just another newbie,
Phil

[This message was edited by P Redmond on 10-25-01 at 01:59 PM.]

EmptyCup
10-24-2001, 11:30 PM
WCFIGHTER

Your question does not seem polite in the least! I HAVE trained in my art for a very long time but I see no relevance. Some who have trained for a long time in an art are even more ignorant than those who are newbies. I have not personally trained under William Cheung but since he has trained other students who do tell the world about how their techniques are superior by comparing EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE DEVIATION, I'm sure that MOST Wing Chun practioners are familiar to them to some extent.

I have also seen videos that William has put out that have him showing his entire style in slow-motion thousands of times :D I assume that the stuff William HIMSELF puts on tape is identical to the stuff he teaches??? or am I wrong in my assumptions? I think that with a background in Wing Chun for so long, that I can make a few comments regarding William. I did not attack the man, in fact I said his skill speaks for itself. I just said things about his approach which he himself teaches. And if I were to point out a bad habit that he repeats countless times and in slow motion, is that his blocks and attacks are not simultaneous. His punches are always a half-second to a second slower. Why don't you take a look yourself?

fa_jing
10-24-2001, 11:51 PM
I'm thinking about buying some W. Chueng instructional tapes, specifically "The path to sparring" vols. 1 -2 , "wingchun vs boxing", The Tao of Wing chun, vol 1-2. I don't have the money right now but in the future I may consider this. I know you had some reservations, but did you feel the quality of the material was worth it?
Also curious to hear from anyone else who has bought these tapes. I know W. has another set of tapes offered through Black Belt mag, has anyone seen these? -FJ

fa_jing
10-24-2001, 11:57 PM
BTW, I was at the Augustine Fong seminar here last Saturday. He was saying that in a street situation, simultaneous block + punch was not possible. This maybe an ideal that can only by approached, not reached. I know that when I am sparring, I have not been able to truly block + punch simultaneously. Of course, I am a beginner!
Just 2.5 years of Wing Chun.
-FJ

Phil Redmond
10-25-2001, 12:13 AM
Think of a Choy Leih Faat stylist swinging a Pow Choy(diagonal strike) at you. If you block and punch simultaneously both of your arms can be trapped. Choy Leih Faat strikes are no joke. Hence, the the simultaneous blocking and striking won't work. Why would I want to commit both of my arms. I lose the advantage of interruptablity. What you saw William Cheung do is what we are taught. If you don't believe me. Have someone swing at you from, let's say, your upper left gate towards your lower right gate. Do a left tan sao punch simultaneously. If the stike at you is done very fast and with great force like CLF does. You can be trapped. You've given the person both of your arms at once. Then try it where you do the punch a fraction of a second after the tan (interruptablity). Once he makes contact with your tan sao your contact reflexes from Chi Sao come into play. If you interpret the force as going diagonally you'll be able to release, recock your strike and use the punching hand to cover. This is one of the reasons that Sifu Cheung was able to beat CLF stylists. I thought the same as you did when I first met Sifu. "Wing Chun is supossed to have simultaneous blocks and strikes," I said. I eventually learned different. For your sake, please don't try your way against a skilled CLF guy. They soak their arms in Dit Da Jau and hit hard stuff. We may disagree, but I wouldn't want you getting hurt. I consider all WC people family.
I don't expect you believe me. Test it for yourself.
Phil

EmptyCup
10-25-2001, 12:35 AM
I'm the one who's always saying theory is not the same as reality in fighting so believe me, I know that simultaneous is not always the right way. However, I'm talking about scenarios where William TEACHES to block and punch at the same time! His execution is the problem, not the theory. There are other scenarios where he teaches one to BLOCK FIRST and THEN ATTACK. But there are times when he IS TRYING to do it at the same time but fails in the timing. However, as I also said before, all this technical stuff doesn't matter too much. Chueng was a good fighter. Wong Chun Leung had terrible form and numerous bad habits yet I don't think his opponents would tell you his skill was anything less than extra-ordinary.

As for CLF, I HAVE SPARRED against CLF. And yes, they have VERY SNEAKY and powerful attacks and combinations. Lots of hammerfists, backfists, waist torque thrown from everywhere and every angle. And yes, you are right that many times I have to block first before attacking otherwise I'd get nailed. I have much respect for CLF as a style and don't think that Wing Chun is superior. But Wing Chun is a better fit for me!

Other styles i have sparred with that i was impressed by: JKD, Hung Gar, TKD, etc

fa_jing: don't worry...many theoretical techniques you learn in Wing Chun are almost impossible to pull off in real scenarios.

redmond: I'm impressed with your answer. You showed knowledge without having to resort to flaming or condescending comments. You handled it very diplomatically and came out sounding like a true martial artist, unlike many who post here.

:) I salute you!

EmptyCup
10-25-2001, 12:47 AM
Fa_jing

I think the one I have is vol 1-2 of Tao of Wing Chun. The videos are quite old and they show their times. The presentation is VERY ANNOYING with moving horizonatal lines that blur and LOUD WIND BLOWING noises that distract from the commentator's dialogue.

However, for a step-by-step guide on hoe to apply wing chun in real combat scenarios such as versus boxers, kickers, etc, it is pretty decent. William shows each thing THOUSANDS OF TIMES until the repetition drives it into your eyeballs and into the back of your skull :D There's normal time and slow-motion. The three forms, knives and pole are covered. There's also a little endorsement from Enter the Dragon clips where we take credit for his pole techniques in the movie although I've never seen Wing Chun staff moves like that :rolleyes:

However, these videos should be supplemented by other ones as they are a tad more advanced in terms of the teachings. Trying to memorize the sequences will get you nowhere. He doen't teach much in terms of appplications but merely shows you scenarios with pre-arranged attacks

Martin Foot
10-25-2001, 02:46 AM
It would be inappropriate for me to give a comparison between Williams & Victor's stuff as I personally haven't studied with either. I can say however, that in Derek’s system, (Body Mind & Spirit Kung Fu) the footwork is simple yet very profound, we pick our feet up when use advancing footwork and when we move laterally from left to right neutral stances, we also use a t-step to change the angle of our axis relative to the opponents line of attack. Instead of only attacking on the centre line, we have a central line which not only includes the centreline but also extends out both sides at a 45 degree angle, this is important to the application of footwork because we can face the point of contact of a block and strike on the outer aspect of the central line and still ground the energy of the strike & the block. This has the strategical advantage of attacking the opponent consistently at 45 degree angles, not depending on whether attacking the opponent from a parallel or crossed leg position, because one adjusts accordingly. Obviously from there the hand techniques are applied relatively to which axis's one is working on, & that depends on the direction of the force that is being applied against one.

Martin Foot
Body Mind & Spirit Kung Fu

WCFighter
10-25-2001, 03:27 PM
My previous post that started with:

Empty Cup
=========
Just curious.

How do you know so much about William Cheung's style? ...


This was directed at EmptyCup and not at you.

You misread the post, and thought the question was directed at you.

What I had to say to you directly can be found in the same post under:

P Redmond
=========

and what I had to say to Martin Foot can be found under

Martin Foot
=========== .


Having said that, I am also a Traditional Wing Chun practicioner , and have the utmost respect for Sigong Cheung.

I have also been to your website in the past, and it is really well-designed.

Respectfully,

WCFighter

"Kick his ass, Sea-Bass!" - Dumb and Dumber

LEGEND
10-25-2001, 08:51 PM
Some questions answered...
I use to be part of WILLIAM CHEUNG organization...one of his students from the Baltimore branch. I read about Hawkin Cheung...he believes that William Cheung made up the MY WING CHUN is the TRUE WING CHUN for marketing purpose. Regarding the 10 or 15 armed men vs. William Cheung fight...that is highly debateable and reminds me of BRUCE vs. the goons in the BIG BOSS movie. The difference seems more intune with the stance work. 50/50 distribution! Regarding William Cheung organization I can't say much about it except that I feel they are extremely prejudice against other wing chun/jkd off shoots. This is from my PERSONAL OBSERVATION.

A

fa_jing
10-26-2001, 12:17 AM
Or is that troll bait? I have and greatly respect "How to develop Chi Power." Guess what. He doesn't come out and tell you how to direct your chi. However, if you do direct your chi flow, then visualizing it flowing in the direction of those little arrows is going to help you. The book won't help you that much if you are just getting started with meditation. If you don't believe in chi, or meditation, maybe you should not waste your time with chinese martial arts, they are heavily based on these concepts.
-FJ

Miles Teg
10-26-2001, 12:21 AM
Its impossible to know what the true story is with him, so we may aswell drop it. I often wish I could go in a time machine,undertake plastic surgery so I would look like a chinese guy, study under Yip Man and find out whether all the different claims that people made had any truth in it. (Im a day dreamer)
The only thing we can do is talk about his style today, and discuss how it differs etc.

I heard that they dont do much chi sao at all. Can some Cheung students tell us how much chi sao they practice? (genuinely curious)

tiger_1
10-26-2001, 01:26 AM
my friends im like to say maubye yip man dnt give to wili.ch. real and original forms and positions and strategy of wing chun , but important here is : that man wili.cheu. give all live for wing chun and for progres in wing chun im mean that is for respect and for best words that is my oppinion . ( tho from us know all sistem of chi sao and wing chun ? )- just friendly tiger_1 :cool:

/

sumyoungdummy
10-26-2001, 02:47 AM
Maybe Augusting Fong did say that you can't block and attack at the same time but I doubt that he would say that you can't deflect and attack at the same time. There is a difference. I have seen fong use a tan da at the same time while shifting. That's just one technique of many that I have seen him do. I personally have been able to deflect and attack at the same time numerous of times against various opponents. I'm sure that many others have been able to do it too. Being able to simultaneously deflect and attack was what lured me into this system. I don't block because I don't like to use force against force. If I block and then punch I will give my opponent an oppurtunity to hit me after my block. Now if I deflect and punch at the same time I would minimize the possibility of getting hit. My deflection and strike goes together with my footwork, angle struture and timing. With out those necessities I won't be able to deflect and attack at the same time. I'm not saying that I deflect and punch all the time but that I'm able to do it when the opppurtunity is given. Yes despite what one or two might say it is possible. Besides wing chun is not the only system that deflects and strikes simultaneously.

A buddhist monk once told me don't believe what people say or tell you! Go and see it for yourself, try it and explore it. Only then would you know the truth!

anerlich
10-26-2001, 07:20 AM
I heard that they dont do much chi sao at all.

And from whom did you hear this? Someone who had actually trained at a TWC school, or just another uninformed poster on the "Net of a million lies"?

Can some Cheung students tell us how much chi sao they practice? (genuinely curious)

Students are taught various chi sao positions and drills at various stages of their training, and in accordance with where they are in the grading system. While chi sao is practiced and revised in class regularly, students are expected to practice the drills in their own time outside of class, so that tuition can deal with more complex aspects of the art rather than being spent on forcing lazy students to do what they should already be doing anyway.

I'm pretty confident that I could hold my own in chi sao with most students of other WC styles who had been training for a similar length of time. I'm also confident my instructor could do the same with people who had been training as long as he.

dedalus
10-26-2001, 08:43 AM
I just thought I might dip in and make a comment about blocking and attacking simultaneously. When I studied wing chun I thought of this as the ultimate economy of motion... I still do, only I now think the second hand is unnecessary.

In bagua and taiji, we execute a simultaneous block and attack with one limb instead of two. Wing chun is familiar with the kicking version - you can block a kick to your knee and break the attackers leg with the same motion. In a way, the block is a by-product of the intent to break the leg. In taiji and bagua, we can do the same thing to a punch - as an opponent punches, you go stright for the neck on the outside and it bounces off their forearm on the way. If you hit the neck before they hit you, all their power is lost... and if you don't get there first, the bump on the way through has shifted the punch jut far enought off target to have neutralised it. Another example from taiji is the penetration punch. When I first saw this punch I thought of it as a bong sau that drives forwards and wields an up-side-down fist on the end. The forearm/elbow pops the attackers punch (this time you're on the inside) and again the impact adds energy to the strike vectoring in on the temple.

As I said, it helps to think of the block as being a by-product of your super-yang counter-offensive. I hope this also gives the (correct) impression that the strategy is extremely street-smart.

Just some chatter for those of you who are interested in both arts ;)

Miles Teg
10-26-2001, 08:48 AM
Ok **** face
A guy who trains in the same school as me who has done William Cheung for 5 years before he changed to a better style.
He also has a video of William Cheung doing Chum Kiu at a seminar and stopping for a while rubbing his head because he forgot how the rest of it went.
I tried to be politically correct thats why I wanted verification from other students, and thats also why I wrote in brackets "genuinely curious".
Note: Attack and defense drills do not equal chi sao.

OdderMensch
10-26-2001, 09:14 AM
Taiji is some cool ****. :)

Check into Oi moon choi and Noi moon choi, they works much as you described. if the fist come over/under (inside or outside "Oi" or "Noi")my fist and has no force you an just "power" in and hit them, if you are in the center and your stace is right, thier hit will just miss but yours will hit.

heh super yang offensse, i like it :D

chi-kwai
10-26-2001, 02:37 PM
but ONLY if your stance is right. If it is left, their hit will hit and yours will miss... or is it your miss will hit left if you are right, right?

--
chi kwai

dedalus
10-26-2001, 05:40 PM
OdderMensch, I dig the name... wonder who else gets it? ;)

Something you wrote in your profile triggered off a memory. One of Yang Shao-Hou's disciples once stated in an interview that there were certain individuals who required no kung fu, because they were already masters. When asked who, he responded "Lao Tse, Budda, Jesus, and that man I saw yesterday with the hammer" :)

WCFighter
10-26-2001, 06:43 PM
Sorry about laying into you the other day; I was already ticked due to another unrelated matter.

I wasn't questioning how long you were studying your particular wing chun style, but whether you had even tried using some of William Cheung's approaches. Sometimes people make comments about whether some strategy works or not WITHOUT even trying it. Sometimes people don't try things because it is foreign to them. Little do they know that they might like it when they do try it.

The other day, I believed you were attacking sigong cheung's strategy by saying "... I don't agree with his approach." That is why I got a little upset.

It's OK for you to have your opinion about it, but as Bill Gates has said in the past,
"Just because YOU don't think it is a good idea, that doesn't mean it isn't!"

I believe all the great Wing Chun practicioners have something to teach all of us!

"Kick his ass, Sea-Bass!" - Dumb and Dumber

EmptyCup
10-26-2001, 09:06 PM
It's cool.

And yes, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Heck most people even disagree with their own opinions at later dates! I know right now I disagree with many of my own principles and beliefs that I previously held when I was younger and less experienced. Who knows? I might end up seeing things the other way in ten years...

However, William does criticize my "modified" wing chun every chance he gets. Every time he opens his mouth, every time he writes or endorses an article. All he's been saying the last decade is how much superior his form of "traditional" wing chun is to the wing chun everybody else learned from Yip Man. It's hard not to criticize him if you see faults since he acts as if he's the inventor of wing chun or something!

tnwingtsun
10-26-2001, 09:27 PM
;) And I thought I was old. :D

hunt1
10-27-2001, 12:09 AM
So many things brought up in this thread but I will keep my comments short.The methods of Bill Cheung can be found in the sword form and to lesser degree in the pole and dummy form in Yip Man derived WC.
There may be a basis in fact for his story and I think Bill's latest story may be closest to the truth.
Fung familiy side body WC is so named because they attack the side of the opponent i.e. the outer gate.Same as TWC.To counter traditional chan wah WC if you are smaller you must use outer gate longer range WC.
Since TWC and the WC taught by Garrett Gee share choreography there must be a connection.One should shed light on the other.

LEGEND
10-27-2001, 03:48 AM
ABMAN...william cheung students practice chi sao almost all the time!
WCFIGHTER...I have to agree with EMPTYCUP...my experience with WILLIAM CHEUNG organization is we are the ONLY TRUE WING CHUN...laughing at all other organizations...I'm surprised you didn't get the propaganda while training with them.

A

anerlich
10-27-2001, 04:56 AM
Miles, first up:

Ok **** face

Glad to see your attempts at political correctness are continuing, also that you are mature and do not have a private agenda.

A guy who trains in the same school as me who has done William Cheung for 5 years before he changed to a better style.

Well, his experience is different from mine. I have 12 years. My instructor is no longer aligned with William Cheung because he too was seeking a "better system".

He also has a video of William Cheung doing Chum Kiu at a seminar and stopping for a while rubbing his head because he forgot how the rest of it went.

And your point is? We left William's organisation because we felt he took his eye off the ball too.

I tried to be politically correct

didn't last long, did it?

thats why I wanted verification from other students, and thats also why I wrote in brackets "genuinely curious".

And I answered your question with due respect to that, though your follow up tantrum indicates it isn't quite true. I have a right to question the source of your opinion, especially when it doesn't agree with my actual experience within the WWCKFA.

Note: Attack and defense drills do not equal chi sao.

:rolleyes: Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious, Sherlock. I'm not sure I ever said they did, but it's a matter of definition.

But - be it chi sao, drills, sparring, or fighting I feel my coach's training and my skills are at least commensurate with those available elsewhere.

LEGEND:

Well, my school doesn't and never did do chi sao "all the time". YMMV.

AbMan

"Ok **** face" - Miles Teg

Phil Redmond
10-27-2001, 09:36 AM
Old??
I'm just a baby. Got a long way to go. :)

Rolling_Hand
10-29-2001, 04:31 AM
Have you checked out Garrett Gee and the HFY reviews on the VTmuseum website? I would like to know your personal comments if any?

hunt1
10-31-2001, 08:03 AM
You ask about something I am not qualified to talk about.I have been told my several in a position to know that the forms etc are 95% the same.I know Rick Spains group has taken to saying its the same WC.I personally dont know.What i do know is that if the choreography is that similiar they share the same source.The fact that Garrett Gee may teach differently or with a deeper understanding doesnt make it different.You can find many Yip Man students who teach differently yet the source is the same and the choreography of the forms tells you that.

I find it interesting that TWC's wooden dummy is so similiar to the Yip Man Dummy form.If it is similiar to HFY dummy form I think something very curious happened.

FUJIYakumo
10-31-2001, 05:03 PM
>I find it interesting that TWC's wooden dummy is
>so similiar to the Yip Man Dummy form.If it is
>similiar to HFY dummy form I think something very
>curious happened.

afaik, the twc dummy form is pretty much the same as tsui shun tings (sp) dummy, since that was williams teacher at that time.

have not seen HFY dummy to know how much they correspond.

i still think william learnt the other stuff from an unknown/undisclosed sifu when he was on the run in china....

-Stu, Lifestyle Wing Chun, Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.lifestylewingchun.com

marcelino31
10-31-2001, 06:51 PM
afaik, the twc dummy form is pretty much the same as tsui shun tings (sp) dummy, since that was williams teacher at that time.

have not seen HFY dummy to know how much they correspond.

i still think william learnt the other stuff from an unknown/undisclosed sifu when he was on the run in china....


tsui shun ting's wc looks totally different than Grandmaster Cheungs..The same applies to the dummy form. They are not the same!

learnt the other stuff....hmm, so you think so ,eh?

LOL...

S.Teebas
10-31-2001, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> tsui shun ting's wc looks totally different than Grandmaster Cheungs..The same applies to the dummy form. They are not the same! [/quote]

Agreed! On top of this the power generation methods are VERY different.


S.Teebas

fa_jing
10-31-2001, 08:26 PM
S. Teebas, how are the power generation methods different? I know that there is variation in methods of turning, is this what you are talking about, or stance structure?

Rolling_Hand
10-31-2001, 09:34 PM
Gents,
From a technical standpoint, Garrett Gee talks about time, space and Hung Fa YI Wing Chun Formula in combat. As a TWC practioner, do you have any thoughts on that? Just curious!

FUJIYakumo
10-31-2001, 10:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>tsui shun ting's wc looks totally different than Grandmaster Cheungs..The same applies to the dummy form. They are not the same!
[/quote]

i didnt say TST's WC was the same as williams. i said the choreography of the dummy was very similar. the version of TSTs dummy form i saw was very similar.

-Stu, Lifestyle Wing Chun, Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.lifestylewingchun.com

hunt1
11-01-2001, 12:19 AM
We live in a 4 dimensional world.(string theory aside)You can apply time space analysis to and WC or martial art for that matter.It is a teaching method.Many teach WC in relation to geometric shaps,triangle's cones ,circles,sphere's etc.The goal is all the same,to provide a method for learning WC in a manner that alows you to make Wc reflexive.If using dimensional analysis gets you to do this great.
I have had enough fighting experience to know that simple is key and you must react to motion without thinking about the motion before you.Whatever method achives this result is a good method.

Rolling_Hand
11-01-2001, 02:20 AM
--Simple is the key

I agree! Can you defind what's simple is in term of body structure? - RH

anerlich
11-01-2001, 02:58 AM
You ask about something I am not qualified to talk about.I have been told my several in a position to know that the forms etc are 95% the same.I know Rick Spains group has taken to saying its the same WC.

I'm a senior student of Rick Spain. Both Rick Spain and Alf del-Brocco (Rick Spain's 2IC) seem pretty convinced that there is a link between HFY/Garrett Gee's stuff and TWC, with William Cheung allegly learning stuff from GG's teacher during his time in mainland China, while WC was supposedly on the lam in China when things got too hot for him in HK due to his involvement in alleged illegal activities, and the "TWC" stories were promoted instead to disguise the truth.

While this makes for a great swashbuckling story and is somewhat more believable than the "secret teaching from Yip Man", Leung Bik and "Traditional/Modified" stories, it's still just another theory. It's fairly significant IMHO that WC himself has said little about it to either confirm or deny.

The VT Museum folks seem to be pushing the HFY barrow pretty hard, though their conclusions and research methods have been challenged by many.

My Sifu and Sihing may have access to sources and information I don't, and my interests lie in the present and future of WC rather than its history, but IMHO, despite the significant similarities between HFY and TWC, and their differences from most other WC styles, there is little hard evidence of a link.

Rolling_Hand
11-04-2001, 08:58 AM
A vacuum tube?

bao
11-08-2001, 09:50 PM
It is not odd to first doubt when a question is given or asked? The question given is sibak William Cheung real? In one way, real meaning that they people praticing the art of William Chueng's wing chun aka traditional wing chun, then yes it is very much real. We can't argue that and there is evidence which we can check and see for ourselves.

But I am assuming the person is asking is Sibak's claim that his wing chun is only authentic wing chun of sigung Yip Man, then it is only wise to doubt before believing. My doubts do not discredit the merits of Sibak's Cheung's accomplishment or his TWC students. Just as my doubts on the existence of an all loving, all powerful, and all knowing god doesn't take away the merits of the believers of a god.

I have studied under one TWC instructor in NYC and now I am studying with a nonTWC sifu. Their names aren't important and my reasoning for leaving TWC are due my own experience with a TWC instructor and not TWC itself.

My knowledge of wing chun isn't great. I do have the knowledge or the experience of meeting all the senior hong kong students of Sigung Yip Man.
It is my personally thought that unless you met the all the teachers of wing chun, you can not make a fair judgement of wing chun gung fu as a whole. It is like meet a few chinese and making a generalization that meeting a few chinese means to you know chinese culture.

I personally doubt Sibak's account and my doubt is only due to the fact that the evidence presented by Sibak Cheung is not conclusive enough to build a paradigm for further research
and it is not beyond the shadow of doubt. If it were beyond the shadow of shadow of doubt, then the major of us would all be studying TWC?

You have probably read or heard people arguments for and against TWC. I do want to present arguments here. But ask my fellow brothers and sisters of wing chun as a whole to critical think for themselves and to stop wasting time with doggin others people within the family.


Bao Tran