Questions on Traditional Wing Chun

[FlyingCrane]

I have trained some in Buddha Hand (Fut Sao) Wing Chun under one of Henry Leung's students, and I have trained in "Hong Kong" Wing Chun under one of Moy Yat's students. I have never trained in Traditional Wing Chun, but I have seen some tapes on it, etc.

I must admit, when I first heard William Cheung's claims about how he was the sole person that Yip Man passed on this art to, I was quite skeptical. Especially in light of the fact that Yip Man's two sons both refuted this claim, and the fact that William Cheung was close with Bruce Lee, who obviously "modified" Wing Chun to form his original Jun Fan Kung Fu, before he made further changes, and developed JKD concepts. For a long time, I was convinced that William Cheung's "Traditional" Wing Chun, however effective it may be, must have been his own modified creation of what he had learned from Yip Man's regular classes.

However, as I looked deeper into this, I found out that several people that I had known that had once studied under Henry Leung, or under Moy Yat, or under Duncan Leung, etc., had gone over to Traditional Wing Chun. Also, when I go over the extent of knowledge that William Cheung seems to have on Iron Palm training, Chi meditation, meridian healing, etc., in addition to some of the rather large differences in TWC itself, it seems very improbable that he could have created all of this himself.

What I find very confusing though is why Yip Man's own sons would not have been taught this version also, or at least been aware that it existed.

I would be interested in hearing what others think about all of this. I realize that this may be very old and worn as a discussion topic for a lot of people here, but I just recently got back into all of this after being away from it for many years. I want to start studying Wing Chun again, and am seriously considering studying Traditional Wing Chun this time.

[anerlich]

I'm a student of Rick Spain, one of William Cheung's most senior guys, who parted ways with him in 1996.

I think most people are skeptical of his origin theory - it stretches credibility to breaking point and sounds like the plot of a bad movie. However William Cheung has AFAIK never changed the story or made any admissions of its falsehood to anybody.

There is some conjecture that he spent some "lost years" on mainland China, out of reach of triads or criminal connections in HK, and learned the stuff there. It's arguable that he could gain some kudos and credibility by "coming clean" if this were the case, explaining the other story away as the usual Chinese obfuscation for secrecy purposes. But he never has. There was also some conjecture that TWC and Hung Fa Yi have a common source, but both Willam Cheung and Garrett Gee deny this. William Cheung is not afflicted by modesty and would not be reticent to claim credit were there any truth to that conjecture - any such relationship could be profitable to both did it exist.

He claims that he only felt free to teach the "secret Traditional system" after Yip Man's death in 1973. My first KF instructor, David Crook, with whom I remain friends, trained with him in Canberra, AUS for a number of years. leaned Wing Chun with the pigeon toed stance and a bent wrist bon sao from him; my current instructor was taught TWC with parallel stance and straight wrist on the bon sao (among other differences). So there is SOMETHING there.

You are correct that this has been done to death for about thirty years, and no new revelations are likely. Lineage means less and less in modern times. Effectiveness is what people want these days.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Very thoughtful and non-troll post by FlyingCrane - and an excelllent response by Andrew (Anerlich).

I trained directly with Moy Yat for 8 years and have been William Cheung's student since 1983 - and have been teaching his TWC for over 2 decades now. And yes, to this day I'm still perplexed also about all of this - since, as you pointed out in your post, FC, there's simply way too much within TWC for William to have simply invented it all.

I've been saying that for years, and I still believe it.

And of course if William's story is true that the mysterious Leung Bik taught TWC to Yip Man (and I don't believe for a second that Leung Bik never even existed - as some people would tell you)...if the story is true...

then that begs the questions "What ever happened to Leung Bik's other students in TWC and their descendants?"

"There were none?" "Yip Man is the only person to ever learn TWC from Leung Bik?"

It's possible, I suppose. But oh, so singular and unlikely - wouldn't you think?

And then there's Garrett Gee and HFY; which, contrary to what many people try to maintain, is nonetheless...basically the same system as TWC.

So there's got to be some big connection between the two allegedly different systems. And for all the myriad names, places, dates, and events given about the supposed history of HFY - none of it can be verified or independently traced.

As is the case with William Cheung's story.

So what the connection between TWC and HFY is, and where it all came from - we may never really know.

In the meantime...just enjoy the ride.

[JGTevo]

1.) William Cheung DID study other styles than Wing Chun.

2.) Yip Man as a teacher, didn't explain things in detail to most(if not all) of his students.

3.) Bruce Lee was a friend of his and obviously collaborated on techniques, principles, theories, etc.

4.) Yip man didn't teach his own sons the "Secret" method? Please. William wasn't even his most senior student.

5.) If any of you have met William Cheung, you'd know how much he exaggerates in his stories. I've heard, directly from him, more than a few times that he fought a "hundred" triads on a boat to Austrailia. Newspapers of the time said he beat up a couple of sailors.

6.) There is absolutely NO historical evidence of any such person existing by the name of Leung Bik.

7.) There has never been anything similar to TWC from ANY of Leung Jan's students. Not even when he retired to Gu Lao.


Never let sentiment cloud your judgement. William Cheung may be a good teacher and practictioner, but his story is as likely to be true as is the story about Ng Mui creating Wing Chun. Bull**** bull**** bull****.

[southernkf]

Hi JGTevo,

I am not picking on you, but this post made me think of a few topics here. For the record, I have argued many of the same points. Some of your comments are stated as absolute facts, or atleast they can be read that way. I tend to agree with them, but I think they are much more in the opinion category.

1) Perhaps. But I am not sure any style would yeild the outcome of what he has.

2)Only those that studied with Yip Man knew what he taught and explained. Certain students had no problem learning and understanding. Many others were just simply common students in a very large class typically ran by someone else. Yip Man rarely taught these people. Others got very intensive explanations. Many sifus talk about this.

3) Not sure what this had to do with anything? Lee's wing chun was not like Cheung's. From what I have heard of early TWC, it looked more like all the other stuff until after Yip Man's death. Lee's wing chun look like any one elses. Not sure what influence there would be.

4)We don''t know what he did and didn't teach his own sons. THere are lots of theories that even claim he didn't teach his sons much at all. Or that they were never interested. What we know is they took a lot more interest in wing chun after their Fathers death and that many other people helped to teach them stuff.

5)Could be true. THough I am not sure what that suggests.

6)Yeah, well there is no historical evidence of my granddad. There isn't any historical evidence of my wing chun teacher or my hung gar teacher. I guess they don't exist.

7) We don't know all that Lueng Jan taught. We have a few lines and many of these are mixed.

Never mix personal sentiment with facts. Almost nothing above is factual. William Chueng's TWC is his wing chun. Perhaps he got it from Yip Man, perhaps not. Yip Man was familiar with many lines of wing chun and some of the lines that often get clouded up into wing chun. Perhaps Yip Man taught William some of that stuff. Perhaps not. Your points are well taken, they are just second hand (or more), interpretations, and theories. Not facts to base a conclusion on.

[Phil Redmond]

I have trained some in Buddha Hand (Fut Sao) Wing Chun under one of Henry Leung's students, . . . .
I helped cook at the Yau Lei Restautant (which Henry owned), on Deancy Street for two years. I even lived in the same apartment building with Henry Leung. I was the first one to get a Sifu certificate from Henry Leung and was there during the "development" of FSWC/Gu Yee Kuen. What do you know of the origins of Fat Sao WC?

[byond1]

Some Random points, on various topics mentioned. Disclaimer:when I say "WCK", im refering to the stream from the Opera boats specificaly.

1) I have looked at the TWC mystery for many years, and come to a conclusion that at the very least, in my opinion, William Cheung believes what he states! Is it so hard to believe a young man(William Cheung), believed what his Sifu (Yip Man) told him?

2) What Yip did or didnt teach, IMO, and his forth coming on things verbaly is the source of many of the issues.
Most dont want to percieve things as they are, so im sorry if this offends anyone.

Yip man learned WCK from 3 or 4 differant sources. There is no question about it. Not only did he learn from Chan Wah Shun, and Ng Chun So, but also spent time training with Yuen Kay Shan, prior to his move to H.K. In HK, oral tradition tells us that he trained with his Uncle, CHu Chong Man. Preserved in several branchs of H.K is also that YIp trained with a student of Fung Wah(Leung Jan Fatshan Student). Many will say "we will never know"- not true. We know Yip taught some material to some people, and not to others. That is fact. Its fact this material can be traced to other WCK systems. So unless Yip spontaneously knew all there was to know, he had to have cross studied various approachs.

Old time WCKers didnt live in a vacume. They all cross trained.So the fact that Yip knew material beyond what he taught most, and that he taught some things to those he liked, and not to others, isnt beyond reason. Its Interesting to note that Yips WCK is described in a way (Described the same way by all acounts) that paints a differant picture, than how most of his students applied the system - IE, "I would be controled no matter what i did, and he would just keep smiling at me" - Thats a far cry from, flaily arms, and trying to chain gun punch someone to death, with a mean look on your face!!




3)The fact that WCK had never been taught to larger amounts than 15 people, might help substantiate my opinion a bit that, YM taught a public WCK to most, in respecting how the ancestors passed down the WCK system(one on one). Yip was very traditional, so I believe he took the Chan System, and further streamlined it, and that is what the general H.K system is. This was win win for him, as he would be able to support himself, spread the WCK system, yet respect the ancestors.

My assertation is provable, if one compares Chan Wah Shun family, to other mainland WCK (YKS, Cheung BO, Mai Gai Wong, Lo Kwai, Kulo, ect) which Chan family even though it uses the Centerline, Heel shifting and Odd weighting, like H.K WCK, still has an expanded curriculum and material that is found in other Mainland WCK but not H.K. Its also very similar to what Yip taught to his Fatshan Students (The only real differance between Yip Fatshan and CHan Family is the later incorporates non WCK forms into the family system as CHo Gar does).

It was between the time of his teaching in Fatshan and H.K that he pioneered and refined things into what they are today.



4) Many parts of the TWC story are based on traditional stories passed down in various WCK clans not something Wiliam created out of a vacume. For example, its a fairly common belief that Chan Wah SHun wasnt taught the full system, but a streamlined version. Reasons being several. First he was off a lower social class, than Leung and the other students. This was common Chinese thought in those times. Second Chan wasnt educated. Three, he tried to learn through "hook or crook: and that ****ed Leung off, and so Leung quality controled his rare WCK system.

If one compares NON H.K WCK, one will fine the truth, that Chans Wah WCK was where the "Center Line" and "Shifting on the Heels", and "odd weigthings" were introduced, and the ONLY WCK that uses these are those stemming from Chan, Ng Chun So, or most YIp Man. As Cho Gar, Lo Kwai Gar, Mai Gai Wong, YKS, Kulo, Cheung Bo, ect use differant methods.

5) Leung Bik IMO is a myth (I used to believe in it) and something used to explain why some learned "differant' material. Leung Jans biography, Pan Nam oral tradition, and Kulo village oral tradition all state Leung Jan had one son named
Leung Chun and he died infirm very young. I believe his wife died due to complications in the birth. Hence when Leung Jan retired, and was moving back to Kulo village, he DIDNT leave his apothacary to a son, as was traditional for the CHinese to do, as he didnt have one. Instead city records show he sold the store to 2 young brothers, who ended up running it into the ground due to lack of true medical knowledge.



6) TWC doesnt show up in any decendents of Leung Jans that we KNOW about, but many parts of it, are core common material found in mainland WCK stemming from Leung. What we know from what Leung Jan taught in Kulo Village, what Leung taught Lo Kwai in Fatshan, and what Leungs classmate Fok Bo Chuen taught Yuen Kay Shan - is that they all use the same core! All of it is there. Yet its missing from Chans line !

So my assertation is that Yip knew the differance to Chan WCK , and standard Leung Jan/Mainland WCK. He taught the Chan WCK in a streamlined package to most, and those he liked he dropped jems of the other material. What ever material William learned he than, did his own thing with based on his experiance of fighting. So in my opinion TWC is part Yip man , part core WCK, and part William Inovation, while HK WCK is part Chan Family and part Yip Man.


7) Ive heard the story of William fighting on the boat in many odd exagerated forms. I know its factual as a young Duncan Leung was on the boat, and witnessed the fight. Sifu Redmond discovered this a few years back during a discussion with Duncan. I think there were 4 sailors. BUT still!!! Thats 4 more than most here have fought in a life time let alone at the same time!!

MOST story tellers embelish, for the sake of "telling a good story" - big deal. Its the art of being a "bard" - that doesnt imply you are purposfully with intent trying to mislead others. Big differance in my opinion.


8) David crook is a very important part of the puzzle. I spoke with him myself years ago, and he told me the same thing Andrew just mentioned.


9) WCK masters, were humans, with all the typical human traits of greed, drug abuse, smoking, jealousy. No Big deal. We learn how to fight from them, not how to develop spiritualy.




10) Im working on a book, with my research group the "AWCKRI". We are tracing the evolution of WCK , and will contain photo sequences of comparing and contrasting a wide range of WCK styles. Everything ive mentioned in this post will have the physical evidence within the book for others to follow up on, with their own research. I hope to resonably proove at least that WCK split into 3 directions - 1) the Chan Family (including Ng Chun So, Yip Man Fatshan) 2) all the other pure WCK branchs, and 3) WCK hybred with Non WCk systems. Than show how the Chan branch was evolved into what is known as standard H.K WCK, and a 4th group appeared, that combined the H.K way, and the Mainland way (Lee Shing, Yiu Choi , Pan Nam ect)


11) Fut sau WCK is something ive been investigating a bit. I need to see the entire system or at least the core material to be able to place it and time stamp it. I have heard 3 or 4 differant stories.

A) It was from Yuen Kay Shans second teacher Fung Siu Ching, from the North and that Bot Gwa was used in WCKs creation.

B) It was from 9 dots monk, who learned it within a temple. Evidently this is the most common occuring story. 9 Dots than taught Henry.

C) It was from Leung Jan and was passed down to Leung Family members, Henry being a "Leung".

or

Some suggest the Fut Sau system is something that Henry put together from several sources.


B

[Phil Redmond]

Henry told me many times that he learned Gu Yee Kuen (Ancient Chivalry Fist) aka Fut Sao (Buddha Hand) Wing Chun from the Venerable Monk Hsu Yun:
http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Home/home-index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hsu_Yun
He called him Gau Jee Woh Seung (9 finger Monk). Henry said the he was named Gau Jee because he had only 9 fingers. He also told us that he learned the Biu Jee form from Hsu Yun while they were locked in a wooden room. During the lesson Hsu Yun died. Henry couldn't get out of the room so Hsu Yun taught him how to use finger strikes to get out of the room through mind transfer. That's when a few of us decided to leave. James Cama eventually became his top student. I was there during the "development" of FSWC. I still have some of the drawings of the hand with the Buddist prayer beads that Henry used as traced on a place mat in his restaurant and now uses as his logo.

[Ultimatewingchun]

That was an awesome post, byond1 (Brian).

Looking forward to reading the book.

Sounds like you've really taken the wing chun historian thing very seriously - and for many decades now.

[anerlich]

Longtime Aussie Wc instructor Greg Tsoi, was also on the boat, and according to an article in the now defunct Australasian Fighting Arts, also witnessed the fight, which, as Brian said was at most four sailors. A teen against four grown men - pretty impressive, even if the narrow gangways supposedly assisted Cheung by mking it impossible for the sailors to get his flank or attack him more than one or two at a time.

I think the issue that ignites controversy isn't that YM taught Cheung a different system - that is likely to be true - but the notions that Yip Man taught EVERYONE else an intentionally crippled system which was second rate, and anointed Cheung as his successor in Grandmasterhood, without telling anyone else but Cheung. THIS defies credibility.

Interesting stuff, Brian. Good luck with the project.

[Shaolin Fist]

Just adding my own speculation to the conversation, its is plausible that while escaping from the triads that he was living amonst mainland triads as him and his family were themselves well connected. If he had learnt his TWC from the triads, then its is unlikely he would be allowed to disclose his lineage due to secret oath's taken upon his initiation, and also it is plausible that he might not have finished the system in China in the 3 year period in which case it would be unlikely that he would got his Sifu's blessing to teach if indeed he could.

So a style of WC without a Sifu or Lineage would be very un-commercial in the height and fame of the 'Yip Man-Bruce Lee' era , so it would make sense to link the two !

So it may not be a simple case of Cheung coming clean and telling us where he actually learnt TWC from...........as he may not actually dare to do so in fear of breaking any triad oath's taken or reprisal for going public without consent. It is still a fact that there are WC lineages on the mainland and in Asia who still choose to remain private.

If indeed the TWC is a top rate system which i dont doubt it is unlikely that Yip Man even if he was himself under an oath of secrecy would choose to pass this 'secret system' onto a very young and loud William Cheung rather than to en-trust it to his own two sons.

But who knows ? i'm sure the truth will come out one day and i for one would like to see the ending of this WC Soap story ! In fact i am more intrigued by this than the original Ng Mui-Wing Chun saga ..................

[Ultimatewingchun]

"If indeed the TWC is a top rate system which i dont doubt it is unlikely that Yip Man even if he was himself under an oath of secrecy would choose to pass this 'secret system' onto a very young and loud William Cheung rather than to en-trust it to his own two sons." (SF)

***I CAN tell you what Moy Yat had to say about some of this - as I trained with Moy for 8 years. Yip Man did not have a good relationship with his sons hardly at all. And put their training into the hands of some of his other students. One of his sons in particular, according to Moy Yat, was very upset about his father's divorce from his mother and his remarriage to another woman. And it caused big problems with his father.

And William Cheung, along with Wing Shun Leung and Bruce Lee, put Yip's school on the Hong Kong map with their street encounters and challenge matches. So it is definitely possible that Yip chose to teach things to William that he never bothered to make sure that his sons also learned.

Does this help verify William's claims? Hardly.

But it's food for thought.

I've always suspected a triad connection for TWC myself.

But none of it can be proved, traced, or verified.

[Liddel]

And William Cheung, along with Wong Shun Leung and Bruce Lee, put Yip's school on the Hong Kong map with their street encounters and challenge matches.


Vic.. really. Yip put his school on the map, it was popular way before Bruce and Cheung began. WSL def helped in this regard though as one of the earliest students.

Whats my basis.. my Sifu knew all of them personally and is the Shing to Bruce and Bill by many years.

What i dont understand is why no one ever mentions Williams brother, Cheung king kong (sp?) who im told had better skills than he back in the day, when my Sifu knew them. Cheung King Kong bought Kung fu from Ip Man and knew quite a bit as a result.

I dont buy Bills story but i am bias because of what my teacher has said from his experiences. But i respect TWC because people say it works for them and thats all i need to hear. End of.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I think that there's quite a bit of backup testimony originating from a whole bunch of sources (ie.- various students and grand students of Yip Man) to the effect that it was William, Wong, and Bruce who really put the reputation of Yip Man's school over the top via fights and challenge matches. There was those three guys - and then there was everyone else.

In fact, Moy Yat told me point blank once that Cheung Chuk Hing (William Cheung) was considered the best fighter in the clan. At least that was Moy's opinion. Which obviously must have been based upon what was expressed to Moy by others who knew/saw William fight - since by the time Moy Yat joined the school in the early 1960's William was already living in Australia. Now we can argue all day about who's #1 and who's #2 (William or Wong)...and so on down the line...

but either way, it should be clear that William was considered to be one of the most elite fighters in the clan - and the biggest/heaviest of all the elite fighters.

Btw...never heard any mention from Moy Yat about William Cheung's brother being better than him. Or any mention of his brother at all, for that matter.

[YungChun]

but either way, it should be clear that William was considered to be one of the most elite fighters in the clan - and the biggest/heaviest of all the elite fighters.

Weren't there others who also did some fighting before during or after this group? I also remember hearing about one or two other students, perhaps from Ip's first group who were supposedly very good.

Who was known as best among those guys I think depends a lot on exactly what year you are talking about.. No doubt they were all changing and growing and in different ways.. I seem to remember that Bruce had mentioned numerous times to close freinds that he wanted Wong, to test his new stuff on , although I think he was in contact with Cheung too in the later years.. No question in my mind that Bruce had taken his training to a different level, I don't know if 'better' fits but seemingly more rigorous, diverse, alive and with more emphasis on physical fitness..

[JGTevo]

Hey southernkf,

My basic point was that there are other possibilities that are far more likely, than it is that William Cheung got a "Secret System" from Yip man.

Yes, it's all opinion as to what really happened, though there are more than a few holes in the Wililam Cheung story.

As for point 1 - If no style would yield the outcome that he has, then it probably wouldn't have been created at all.. all martial arts are derived from various sources... usually starting with actual combat. For point 2, I may have been incorrect on this point, it was what I usually heard around my old school from my instructor and if I remember correctly, on a few occaisions from William Cheung.

For point 3, this I think shows that it is not outside of the realm of possibility that William Cheung could have followed Bruce's path in trying to refine the style.

4, obviously we do not know what he really taught any of them.. but it is unlikely that he would not have taught, or at least trusted his sons, with the knowledge.

5, what it suggests is that it is not outside of the realm of possibility that he made the whole thing up.

6, do you know how many students Leung Jan had? And Chan Wah Shun? And how many students Yip Man had? And never ANY mention of a Leung Bik from any of them, until William Cheung. Yip Man didn't mention it to anyone, Leung Jan didn't mention it to anyone and if he did, they didn't mention it to any of their disciples/family.

7, but nothing that looks similar to TWC's footwork...

[southernkf]

My basic point was that there are other possibilities that are far more likely, than it is that William Cheung got a "Secret System" from Yip man
I don't like that idea any more than most. But unfortunately there isn't any "proof" one way or the other. It is all conjecture at best. Though I don't think it true. In any case, most people seem to be way beyond this arguement anyways.


For point 3, this I think shows that it is not outside of the realm of possibility that William Cheung could have followed Bruce's path in trying to refine the style.
I don't think Chueng Followed Lee at all. They did different things. Lee's was out of necessity. despite some reports, Lee was not well versed in Wing Chun. He left before completing a lot of it. He was not a wing chun "master" when he left. I feel he stayed traditional for a while (Jun Fan) by evolving his gung fu training of wing chun and various sources. Then he started to dabble with other fighting methods and experimenting with what worked (JKD). I beleive William was much more well versed in all of wing chun when he moved on. This too is conjecture, but I don't believe WIlliam was influenced directly by Lee's JKD. By this I don't think TWC is a direct by product of Lee influences (directly or indirectly). But of course I can'tmake that statement with authority as it is just a limited theory.


obviously we do not know what he really taught any of them.. but it is unlikely that he would not have taught, or at least trusted his sons, with the knowledge.
It isn't unlikely at all. Not all sons have an interest in their Fathers affairs. From my info, the brothers have noted on that they were not interested in wing chun. THere are numerous other accounts where Yip Man students advised them to start learning. Then there are a few accounts of people like Leung Ting and others training them for periods of time. I am sure their father taught them wing chun, I just wouldn't say their knowledge was anymore special than any one else, at all. Their primary intresest apparently didn't start until after their father passed. Of course this is the knowledge I have and I would love to hear more if someone has different information. But we can't say what they knew or didn't based on who their father was. We don't know what he taught them.


do you know how many students Leung Jan had? And Chan Wah Shun? And how many students Yip Man had? And never ANY mention of a Leung Bik from any of them, until William Cheung. Yip Man didn't mention it to anyone, Leung Jan didn't mention it to anyone and if he did, they didn't mention it to any of their disciples/family.

lets look at the question. How many students did Leung Jan Have? Who's records have we seen from Chan Wah Shun? and who exactly did not mention Leung Bik? There are very few records and most are contradictory, most are simply oral traditions. Some lines mention he existed others don't. Some say he was mentally handicapped, others said he died young. One says he taught Yip Man, and other says he didn't exist. The problem is we can't pick and choose among the stories. All we know is there are conflicting stories. But it is interesting to note that Yip Man's records did not include him. I find that interesting myself. Though several of his students do say he learned from Leung Bik. Several of them were close to Yip Man and would know if Yip Man said it or not. I find this very interesting and a bit disturbing. One important thing is you can't prove something doesn't exist because you have no evidence. It may or may not be true.


but nothing that looks similar to TWC's footwork...
I am not so sure. What exactly have we compared and to what degree? I agree it is different than most lineages but I don't think it is too different. In other words I still think it closer to wing chun than say Hung Gar or Tai Chi. Difference is just a matter of degree. Pan Nam's wing chun footwork is quite different as is some other branches. Pan Nam's wing chun claims something somewhat akin to what HFY and TWC claims. That there is other different lines of wing chun that are apparently built differently. But it is hard to see through Pan Nam's fusion of atleast a couple versions of wing chun, Hung Kuen, and what ever else he knew. I think we are only seeing a small portion of wing chun that has existed.

Just as a final note, I am not disagreeing with you much at all. Just advising that your comments are more your opinions based on what you have heard. Much of that is just common info that has been passed around the internet for years. But it is hardly proof, hense why the topic keeps coming up.

[Ultimatewingchun]

Until you see the HFY footwork. (TWC = HFY).

But even more to the point of what can be verified somewhat - the Weng Chun footwork is not that far awy from TWC (I once had a workout with one of Andreas Hoffman's top students after Andreas informed me that his man would be spending a weekend in NYC a few years ago)...

and Andreas later told me after I sent him some William Cheung video that TWC looks more like Weng Chun than any other YIP MAN BASED wing chun he'd ever seen.

And then there was Yip Man's uncle, Chu Chong Man...who was a weng chun Master and living in Hong Kong simultaneosuly with Yip Man.

But Brian probably knows more details than I do about all these possible connections (byond1)...

so again, I'm eager to read his book when it comes out.

[JGTevo]

I don't think Chueng Followed Lee at all. They did different things.

I meant more in follow in the idea of refining his style, not necessarily technique/strategy/principle/etc.-wise.



lets look at the question. How many students did Leung Jan Have? Who's records have we seen from Chan Wah Shun? and who exactly did not mention Leung Bik? There are very few records and most are contradictory, most are simply oral traditions. Some lines mention he existed others don't. Some say he was mentally handicapped, others said he died young. One says he taught Yip Man, and other says he didn't exist. The problem is we can't pick and choose among the stories. All we know is there are conflicting stories. But it is interesting to note that Yip Man's records did not include him. I find that interesting myself. Though several of his students do say he learned from Leung Bik. Several of them were close to Yip Man and would know if Yip Man said it or not. I find this very interesting and a bit disturbing. One important thing is you can't prove something doesn't exist because you have no evidence. It may or may not be true.

Obviously, it's very limited in historical fact... but there are several known students of Leung Jan, and styles that derived from Leung Jan, not through Yip Man, and to my knowledge, no one has mentioned a Leung Bik.

But, you say some of yip man's students say he learned from Leung Bik? Which ones? I've only ever heard William Cheung talk of this. This would lend credibility to his story...



Just as a final note, I am not disagreeing with you much at all. Just advising that your comments are more your opinions based on what you have heard.

I completely agree. I don't have actual fact to back them up. I'm not a historian.. I'm not discussing what I know, and providing my own viewpoint to (as I said before) was a very one-sided discussion at first. I appreciate any corrections or new information I can learn from this discussion. I'm not afraid of learning a thing or two :)



Until you see the HFY footwork. (TWC = HFY).

As far as I know, HFY is pretty controversial in it's claims, itself.



But even more to the point of what can be verified somewhat - the Weng Chun footwork is not that far awy from TWC (I once had a workout with one of Andreas Hoffman's top students after Andreas informed me that his man would be spending a weekend in NYC a few years ago)...

That's interesting. I haven't seen the Weng Chun footwork.



And then there was Yip Man's uncle, Chu Chong Man...who was a weng chun Master and living in Hong Kong simultaneosuly with Yip Man.

That could be the source, then.


From what I heard, William Cheung (at least according to my old instructor, who was a direct student of Cheung) added in a few things to TWC (maybe he's added in more) fairly recently (within the last five years or so)... However, honestly I'm not sure how accurate that is.

[Phil Redmond]

I don't know if you've seen these articles. Here are two links where William Cheung (Chang in Mandarin), is mentioned. The first one shows who were the people that "helped" WC's popularity at that time. The second article is an inteview with WSL.
In that article Bruce Lee asks WSL if he would ever be able to beat him and Chang (Cheung).

http://www.wingchunkuen.com/sumnung/articles/article_lo01.html
http://www.wongvingtsun.co.uk/wslbl.htm

[southernkf]

Hi JGTevo,


I meant more in follow in the idea of refining his style, not necessarily technique/strategy/principle/etc.-wise.

Understood.


Obviously, it's very limited in historical fact... but there are several known students of Leung Jan, and styles that derived from Leung Jan, not through Yip Man, and to my knowledge, no one has mentioned a Leung Bik.
Have they mentioned the other sons? Leung Jan was known to have children. If we dismiss Leung Bik because of his lack of mentioning, then we might dismiss all his sons that weren't mentioned. Some people do actually mention him, just in different manners.


But, you say some of yip man's students say he learned from Leung Bik? Which ones? I've only ever heard William Cheung talk of this. This would lend credibility to his story...

There are several Yip Man students that mention him. Leung Ting tells the story. Joy has on numerous occasions said he believes the account, but I am not sure that is an Augustine Fong held belif. But if so, then that came from the close student and personal friend of Ho Kam Ming. I'll let Joy clarify. People in the Leung Sheung camp don't seem to make much fuss about it, but several have mentioned the story. This would have it's roots in Leung Sheung. Better again to let them answer that question with more details as I don't know. Many others too have mentioned it. One person long ago brought up the topic that Leung Bik was a story made up be a senior Wing Chun student to help Yip Man gain more credibility in a marketing way. I am not sure how this would have helpped, but apparently it did. Of course this is just an alegation, but my point here is just to say that many people heard the story, it wasn't just William Cheung. The fact that Leung Ting also acknowledges it, or should I say embraces it, says something.

I didn't write the last part, but I have little knowledge of HFY to make any real claims about it, so I wont. But I think Victor is on to something and was definatly on the same wave length as me. THere are other arts not so different and there are others who have modified wing chun over the years. My personal theory is that Chu Chong Man may have had some influence on what became TWC. His line is different and I wonder if this is partally what was taught to Cheung. But of couse it wouldn't be that style alone. But only William and perhaps a few people know for sure. Perhap there was a super secret version of wing chun. TWC and HFY both state this. Pan Nam claims his wing chun comes from different roots. Weng CHun of Chu Chong Man is quite different as is the Gee Shim Weng Chun of Andreas(same line!?!?). So there are some alternatives. I bet there are even more odd versions of wing chun out there somewhere.

Regardless if it came from Leung Bik or not is irrelevant. I think the key point is if it is made up or not. Even that is minimalized if it is effective. All arts are made up. I think most of the oral traditions are flawed. We say Yip Man learned from Chan Wah Shun, but if we look at the details we wouldn't claim that since he was only alive for a year or two max in Yip Man's training. Did Ng Mui exist? Did Yimm Wing Chun? There are enough differing accounts to suggest perhaps not. Again, we don't really know. Either you buy the stories or not. Personally I look at the stories as allegories that helps us understand the system. I can see the value in them from that perspective. I wouldn't bet anything more than may $10 on them being true. Others would apparently start a wing chun civil war over the topic. LOL

[JGTevo]

Interesting stuff. The fact that Chu Chong Man had such a similar style makes Leung Bik irrelevant... Thanks for the information, southernkf.

[Liddel]

At least that was Moy's opinion. Which obviously must have been based upon what was expressed to Moy by others who knew/saw William fight - since by the time Moy Yat joined the school in the early 1960's William was already living in Australia. Now we can argue all day about who's #1 and who's #2 (William or Wong)...and so on down the line...

but either way, it should be clear that William was considered to be one of the most elite fighters in the clan - and the biggest/heaviest of all the elite fighters.


Thats kinda my point Vic - in the 60's Ips school was already well known.
My Sifu began in the mid 50's. It doesnt really matter anyway :)

I know Bill was a fighter alright, ive heard my sifus account of the state of things between Bill and Ting... my sifu played the go between when bill wanted to smash him :)... funny story bout ting jumping out a window...didnt really want to fight LOL.



Btw...never heard any mention from Moy Yat about William Cheung's brother being better than him. Or any mention of his brother at all, for that matter.

Was it you or Phil that mentioned the brothers made Ips dummy etc....

No, no one ever talks about the third Ip son either, who my sifu said was better than Ip Chun having started earlier than he (part time) could be the source of some of the bad feelings someone posted earlier.

Just for balance -
As far as Willaim getting TWC and GM Ip's sons not knowing - POV.

My Sifu taught Lok Yiu's sons as Sifu Loks assistant, and given Ip delegated most of the teaching later in his life its not a far stretch to think Bill got something the Ip Boys didnt.... especdially Ip Chun who started learning way late.

Wouldnt surprise me if they were taught by another student of Ips and got later refinement from the old man.

My opinion, the differences we seee today come mainly from the fact Ip Delegated to assistants for teaching the basics and he only refined gave further instruction to those he saw fit (or paid big bucks).

DREW

[Phil Redmond]

Here is a link refering to the Cheung brothers and the first HK Wing Chun dummy:
http://www.springtimesong.com/wcforms4woodendummy.htm
It doesn't mention Cheung King Kong by name but I know he got the plans from Yip Man to have the dummy made. The brothers had different mothers but lived in the same house with their Police Official dad and the wives. It was common for men to have more than one wife then.

[FlyingCrane]

Wow. I hadn't checked this thread for a few days, and was surprised at all the great info here. Thanks to everyone for their input on this.

Hello Phil,

Firstly, with regards to your other post about your son getting shot, I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope that he's coming along OK.

You wrote:


I helped cook at the Yau Lei Restautant (which Henry owned), on Deancy Street for two years. I even lived in the same apartment building with Henry Leung. I was the first one to get a Sifu certificate from Henry Leung and was there during the "development" of FSWC/Gu Yee Kuen. What do you know of the origins of Fat Sao WC?

As to my knowledge of the origins of Fut Sao Wing Chun, I only know what I heard being said by the students of Henry that I knew and studied with back in the 80s. Namely Richmond Coe, Allard Anglin, and to some extent, Santo Barbalace. I never met James Cama.

I heard different things at different times from different people about what was the "true" origin of Fut Sao Wing Chun, so quite frankly, I was never really sure what to believe. There was also a good deal of discussion that used to go on with regards to who Henry was teaching the "right" way, and who he was not. This was a much debated topic among his students, at least when I was around back then. I think the school was on 31st or 33rd street back in those days.

I remember hearing that Henry Leung was Duncan Leung's brother (or half-brother), and that when Duncan moved to West VA, he more or less turned his NYC students over to Henry. I don't know if that's true or not, but I also heard that story from Joel Young, who had trained with Duncan, and then with Henry after Duncan moved. I don't know if you know the Young brothers. I know Joel's twin brother Gary Young is now with William Cheung's line, but I don't know about Joel.

This whole thing about Duncan and Henry is very interesting, since their Wing Chun styles were quite different. Duncan's is apparently a real kicka$$ Hong Kong version, and Henry's is far more soft and internal, although certainly no less effective!

I remember hearing that in Fut Sao Wing Chun, you first learn to do each form on it's own, like in other Wing Chun styles, and then you learn to do each form (Sui Lin Tao, etc.) on the wooden dummy, where they are done somewhat differently. I remember a lot of interesting exercises (lifting large jars filled with water with a finger-clasp grip to develop hand strength, rocking a heavy iron bar back and forth in one hand, and then the other to strengthen up the muscles and tendons in the arms for more powerful close range punching, doing push ups with the bottom three knuckles of your fists resting on a 2x4 that was layed flat on the floor, etc.) that all seemed very effective and helpful.

I remember initially being taught the Sui Lin Tao form in Buddha Hand in an even more exageratted pigeon-toed horse stance than most other Wing Chun styles that I had seen. However, sometime later, another student privately told me that the pigeon-toed horse stance was BS, and was used to deliberatly mislead students until Henry felt that they were ready. He told me that Henry actually taught that the form should be done in a regular horse stance (like TWC), and that the pigeon-toed stance actually inhibited the flow of chi somewhat.

I don't know for sure if this is true, but intuitively, it feels right to me. I never had a good sense about the pigeon-toed stance and energy flow. I know that many Wing Chun stylists speak to the pigeon-toed stance's stability for training, etc., but it never did feel right to me.

[Ultimatewingchun]

On the pidgeon toed stance, I'd like to add a few cents of my own regarding it's viability to training and actual fighting skills.

As was already alluded to, in TWC it's not used at all, and the forms are done with the toes pointing straight ahead.

What I've come to see/believe at this point in time after so many years (32) in wing chun - and the way I teach the forms now to my students - is that they should get into the TWC stance when opening up a form...

and then turn your toes "slightly" inward (telling my students that it should "almost" feel like being pidgeon toed - but still pointed straight ahead...unless you happen to actually look down at your feet very carefully and perhaps see a bit of an inward angle of the toes that's hardly noticable)...

so that the KNEES INWARD aspect of the stance (both in forms and in actual drilling, chi sao, sparring, combat, etc.) - is bring ingrained into your muscle memory.

Since this provides more stability, groin protection, ease of footwork movement, and kick readiness than if the knees and toes are even slightly outward. And of course the more outward they become - the less efficient these things (kicking, footwork, stability) become.

[southernkf]

Weren't there others who also did some fighting before during or after this group? I also remember hearing about one or two other students, perhaps from Ip's first group who were supposedly very good.

Who was known as best among those guys I think depends a lot on exactly what year you are talking about.. No doubt they were all changing and growing and in different ways.. I seem to remember that Bruce had mentioned numerous times to close freinds that he wanted Wong, to test his new stuff on , although I think he was in contact with Cheung too in the later years.. No question in my mind that Bruce had taken his training to a different level, I don't know if 'better' fits but seemingly more rigorous, diverse, alive and with more emphasis on physical fitness..

Lots of people were noted as fighters. Wong Sheung Leung is often cited as a major fighters. I beleive Wang Kiu or someone like that was involved. I have heard several over the years. But the fights maynot be as much as they are hyped up to be. Some where probably more serious than others. Many of the roof tops fights weren't so serious. Look at the online vid for yourself of one fight.

Of course there are others that fought, but they didn't do so publicly. By that I mean they weren't part of the group that sought publicity to make a name for wing chun. I couldn't even tell you the details, but several others were involved in serious fights as well. Who is the best? that is a bit tricky and depends on who you ask. A Wong Sheung Leung student would probably say he is. A William Cheung Student would probably say he was. Etc. There are some that were mutually respected by others.

[southernkf]

On the pidgeon toed stance, I'd like to add a few cents of my own regarding it's viability to training and actual fighting skills.

As was already alluded to, in TWC it's not used at all, and the forms are done with the toes pointing straight ahead.

What I've come to see/believe at this point in time after so many years (32) in wing chun - and the way I teach the forms now to my students - is that they should get into the TWC stance when opening up a form...

and then turn your toes "slightly" inward (telling my students that it should "almost" feel like being pidgeon toed - but still pointed straight ahead...unless you happen to actually look down at your feet very carefully and perhaps see a bit of an inward angle of the toes that's hardly noticable)...

so that the KNEES INWARD aspect of the stance (both in forms and in actual drilling, chi sao, sparring, combat, etc.) - is bring ingrained into your muscle memory.

Since this provides more stability, groin protection, ease of footwork movement, and kick readiness than if the knees and toes are even slightly outward. And of course the more outward they become - the less efficient these things (kicking, footwork, stability) become.

Hi Victor,

Just to comment on pigeon toes, I myself study wing chun that advocates pigeon toed stances. I breifly studied on line that didn't. I feel the straight ahead, even today, to be easier and more stable for me. I have always had a hard time finding the benifit of the pigeon toe stance. I always beleived in it but always had a hard time proving to myself that it was better. Last night I was actually playing around with some stances work and structure. I think something clicked for me where I could actual justify the benifit of the stance and why the whole piece fits together. I havn't directly benifited from this idea, but I think I am on the right track. So for me, the knees in seems viable, but only if you can utilize it properly. If you can't say why, and prove why it is valid, then perhaps it isn't being done correctly.

Perhaps a bit of topic, but I just wanted to share my exerience.

[Liddel]

A Wong Sheung Leung student would probably say he is. A William Cheung Student would probably say he was. Etc. There are some that were mutually respected by others.

Anyone with real fight experience shouldnt say who was better, you just cant....

IMHO Wong fought more, but maybe people talked about his fights more and thats just the bi product.

People talk about the rooftop fights. From what im told most had rules like to no head contact which would account for certain looks in terms of the vids out there.
At least those that my sifu fought in and he was with WSL alot of times he fought also.

Also some of the early folks were asked by Ip Man to go to other schools of Kung Fu and even other Wing Chun branches to "test" thier skills in fighting, to make sure the masters at those schools were in fact masters....My sifu was sent to a few by the old man.

It seems there were people back then also playing sifu, who didnt really cut the mustard (in Ips eyes).

There were people that were asked to fight, there were people that wanterd to fight on thier own with whom ever.

[southernkf]

Hi Liddel,

That about sounds right to me. Better is a loaded word and really doesn't mean much. I've heard stories about Yip Man, but I can't verify them. What we know is that various fights took place and wing chun did OK. I think the seriousness of the fights varied and many were not very serious. Rules were in place for example.

[LoneTiger108]

I've only just seen this thread and can't believe how much info is given here, truths or not, this is a fascinating read! Forgive my stupidity here, but are we saying that anything pre-Yip Man is 'Traditional'? By this I mean that my Grandmaster was a Traditionally trained Martial Artist who 'mastered' Wing Chun under Yip Mans guidance (among others).

As long as the spelling of Wing Chun still changes, we may all just grow further apart and I, for one, have had enough! After all, if its written in Chinese its all exactly the same (albeit Weng Chun has a different 'Wing') and from what I've been told, the original WC was changed to VT because the Cantonese English/Pinyin system changed! This has just caused a trend used as an 'Identity' key which is still wierd to me lol!

I too look forward to seeing something in print on this subject as it was made very clear to me during my time training that Yip Man may never have finished his 'mission'. It was also easy for me to study the 'differences' because most, if not everything, was 'written down'.

We are all part of the same family. Now, whether you believe in a Woman or a Shaolin Hall is completely individual and I have time for both ideas in my mind...

[Phil Redmond]

http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=39102&highlight=wing+Choon

[anerlich]

Forgive my stupidity here, but are we saying that anything pre-Yip Man is 'Traditional'?

No.

Hard to believe you never heard this since it was the hottest topic in the YM Wing Chun world in the 1970s through the 1990s, and it seems incredible that there still exist YM students that haven't heard it.

Big T "Traditional" refers to Wllliam Cheung's brand. "Traditional" was taught down the line from Mg Mui all the way to Leung Jan. When Chan Wa Shun started pestering him for lessons and spying on his teaching sessions with LJ's sons, LJ deliberately taught a crippled "modified" version when he knew CWS was watching. He continued to teach the modified version to CWS while teaching his sons the real big T thing in secret.

YM learned modified from CWS. Then he ran into Leung Bik who kicked his butt big time. Leung Bik then taught YM Traditional. YM only taught Traditional to William Cheung in secret, and taught the modified system to everyone else.

If you believe the story, that is.


This has just caused a trend used as an 'Identity' key which is still wierd to me lol!


It's about branding. This is the 21st century, get used to it.


it was made very clear to me during my time training that Yip Man may never have finished his 'mission'.

I doubt he ever had a mission, and if he did he comprehensively screwed up major parts of it, viz. naming a succession heirarchy and accredited instructors and leaving controversies like this unanswered.


We are all part of the same family.

I have a strong aversion to the term "family" in this context. In the 21st century, we belong to clubs and organisations practicing a martial art. I have a nice family and do not need another. The emotional connotations involved are IMO inappropriate and subject to abuse.

Every time I see "Kung Fu family", I think "Manson Family".

[LoneTiger108]

I have a strong aversion to the term "family" in this context. In the 21st century, we belong to clubs and organisations practicing a martial art. I have a nice family and do not need another. The emotional connotations involved are IMO inappropriate and subject to abuse.

Every time I see "Kung Fu family", I think "Manson Family".

I can totally see your point on this one anerlich, although you only echo the trends in todays 'screw the family' culture I'm afraid. Nothing I haven't seen before and will see again and again. May I just add my personal view here...

The reason I use this term so loosley is because whilst I was training under my Sifu I 'felt' like a 'Son', a 'Martial-Son', if you like, as we all did. This basically means you eat, sleep and live the training without financial worry. There was, at the time, no Woi (Association) and for me personally no fee. We all just mucked in and done what was asked of us. My teacher became a 'Father-figure', as I was having my own problems at home too, yet instead of convincing us all to sit in lotus and burn ourselves to death (as in the Manson incident!) he embraced us and taught me personally how to 'be' part of a family and what it meant to him.

This naturally spread into my own life, and I can safetly say that without my teacher, my own relationship with my Father & Mother would not be as fulfilling and happy. I can also respect that I have no need to be in constant touch with my Martial Family, as like my blood family, but when we do talk or meet there is always that familiarity. That 'connection' that reaches beyond blood-line. We make time throughout the year on Birthdays and Celebrations and I believe this is all that is meant by the use of the word 'Family' in relationship to Martial Arts. Familiarity.

We are all one family essentially, and the meticulous nature of extremely religious 'sects' should not deter us from unifying under a 'Family' banner. Allbeit immature for me to say that the Wing Chun Family has had no problems, but I do feel that these issues are only ever sensationalized by people who have never even experienced what it 'is' like to be a part of a Martial Family, or their own experiences have been plagued with disaster.

[anerlich]

I can totally see your point on this one anerlich, although you only echo the trends in todays 'screw the family' culture I'm afraid.

Obviously you can't see my point because I never said that. I never denigrated families. I denigrated the misuse of the word "family" and its use in situations where it is inappropriate. IMO it is the "kung fu family" attitude that spits upon the notion of what a true family is.


We are all one family essentially, and the meticulous nature of extremely religious 'sects' should not deter us from unifying under a 'Family' banner.

Save your lectures, opinions and superior attitude for the impressionable.


I do feel that these issues are only ever sensationalized by people who have never even experienced what it 'is' like to be a part of a Martial Family, or their own experiences have been plagued with disaster.

So anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid or flawed? That's a bit condescending, don't you think? Suffice to say I have seen this happen. Once is too often, but I've seen it more than once.


I can not appologize for who I am

I didn't ask you to appologize [sic]. I asked you to leave me out of this "Kung Fu family" madness. So, please ... ?

[LoneTiger108]

Obviously you can't see my point because I never said that. I never denigrated families. I denigrated the misuse of the word "family" and its use in situations where it is inappropriate. IMO it is the "kung fu family" attitude that spits upon the notion of what a true family is.

I still think linking the word 'family' to Wing Chun isn't innappropriate and I'd hope there are others who have contributed to this thread that agree with me. I've always believed that the family bond was strong between my generation. We are quite new and have also had many hard and troubled times. Study and training was intense, and we have been very lucky to learn from a teacher so open and interested in cultural exchange. Tradition is family.


Hard to believe you never heard this since it was the hottest topic in the YM Wing Chun world in the 1970s through the 1990s, and it seems incredible that there still exist YM students that haven't heard it.

Big T "Traditional" refers to Wllliam Cheung's brand. "Traditional" was taught down the line from Mg Mui all the way to Leung Jan. When Chan Wa Shun started pestering him for lessons and spying on his teaching sessions with LJ's sons, LJ deliberately taught a crippled "modified" version when he knew CWS was watching. He continued to teach the modified version to CWS while teaching his sons the real big T thing in secret.

I know little of the stories of Leung Jan and others, but I hear of a good TV series in HK so can't really comment on your perceptions of a modified version. I don't think that I learnt any 'secrets' and I didn't realize that the term Traditional only refers to William Cheungs 'brand'. My appologies for starting Wing Chun after 1990 in London. Still, I'm not an Yip Man student either.

How can this thread get back on subject I wonder? I know, a question on Traditional Wing Chun; Who teaches from curriculae that was passed to them in its 'traditional' format?*

*A piece of Chinese Literature

[anerlich]

I still think linking the word 'family' to Wing Chun isn't innappropriate and I'd hope there are others who have contributed to this thread that agree with me.

Good for you. Good for them. You're all entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine.


How can this thread get back on subject I wonder? I know, a question on Traditional Wing Chun; Who teaches from curriculae that was passed to them in its 'traditional' format?*

That's not actually the subject of the thread, but I split hairs.

Traditional Wing Chun (TM), I guess, has a number of texts, all by William Cheung:

How to develop Chi Power
Advanced Wing Chun
Wing Chun Bil Jee
Kung Fu Butterfly Swords
Kung Fu Dragon Pole

plus a considerable number of videos. My WC teacher also publishes video. This probably isn't what you want to hear, but these are the closest things we have to the texts I think you are talking about. Many are by Ohara publications, so they are from China via Japan and the U.S.


My appologies for starting Wing Chun after 1990 in London.

Why do you feel a need to appologise [sic]?

[stonecrusher69]

No.

Hard to believe you never heard this since it was the hottest topic in the YM Wing Chun world in the 1970s through the 1990s, and it seems incredible that there still exist YM students that haven't heard it.

Big T "Traditional" refers to Wllliam Cheung's brand. "Traditional" was taught down the line from Mg Mui all the way to Leung Jan. When Chan Wa Shun started pestering him for lessons and spying on his teaching sessions with LJ's sons, LJ deliberately taught a crippled "modified" version when he knew CWS was watching. He continued to teach the modified version to CWS while teaching his sons the real big T thing in secret.

YM learned modified from CWS. Then he ran into Leung Bik who kicked his butt big time. Leung Bik then taught YM Traditional. YM only taught Traditional to William Cheung in secret, and taught the modified system to everyone else.

If you believe the story, that is.



It's about branding. This is the 21st century, get used to it.



I doubt he ever had a mission, and if he did he comprehensively screwed up major parts of it, viz. naming a succession heirarchy and accredited instructors and leaving controversies like this unanswered.



I have a strong aversion to the term "family" in this context. In the 21st century, we belong to clubs and organisations practicing a martial art. I have a nice family and do not need another. The emotional connotations involved are IMO inappropriate and subject to abuse.

Every time I see "Kung Fu family", I think "Manson Family".

Yeah,I 've heard this story.If its true Leung Jan knew Chan Wa Shun was spying on him and his students why not just confort him and settle it.Also to modified a whole system for just one person seems crazy to me. He would have to redo all the forms leave out information and be carefull not to let out information or actidentally do something by mistake. Who would do that today in the 21 centry?

[Liddel]

The story is BS mate thats why... it doesnt make sence.

If my teacher taught me a different version of VT cause someone was watching us train, then i would -

1) Have trained alot in the modified version myself, therefore be almost the same.

2) be pi55ed that i was wasting my time on something i knew was 'inferior' or only part of a whole.

It would make more sence if he just didnt explain things when someone was watching and we just did form. After all how good is any system that you learn from just watching with no hands on learning and/or theory to support actions.

Perhaps thats a better/closer to the truth explanation.... :rolleyes:

DREW :cool:

[LoneTiger108]

Traditional Wing Chun (TM), I guess, has a number of texts, all by William Cheung:

How to develop Chi Power
Advanced Wing Chun
Wing Chun Bil Jee
Kung Fu Butterfly Swords
Kung Fu Dragon Pole

plus a considerable number of videos. My WC teacher also publishes video. This probably isn't what you want to hear, but these are the closest things we have to the texts I think you are talking about. Many are by Ohara publications, so they are from China via Japan and the U.S.

Well, I personally would have NEVER guessed in a million years that this list is what constitutes 'Traditional Wing Chun'. This means that 'Modern Wing Chun' is Siu Lim Tao, Chum Kiu, 108 Wooden Man? I, IMHO, think not...

As for the texts/books you mention, I don't believe they will be anything like the literature I study. Its a very personal thing for me to even mention it within these threads, and I only ever seem to hit a wall of silence.

Back to the thread though, if it's just about William Cheungs 'Brand' of Wing Chun, why don't you just create another thread with a more suitable title?

[Ultimatewingchun]

"As for the texts/books you mention, I don't believe they will be anything like the literature I study. Its a very personal thing for me to even mention it within these threads, and I only ever seem to hit a wall of silence.

Back to the thread though, if it's just about William Cheungs 'Brand' of Wing Chun, why don't you just create another thread with a more suitable title?" (Lone Tiger)


***HERE'S a nice title for a new thread:

HOW I DELUDED MYSELF INTO THINKING THAT WILLIAM CHEUNG SHOULD GIVE UP THE NAME "TRADITIONAL WING CHUN" BECAUSE I'M THE LONE TIGER AND I DON'T LIKE IT. :eek:

(Subtitled..."how I know that William Cheung's books are not high quality even though I've never read them)." :rolleyes:

Ah listen, LoneTiger, if you're ever in St. Louis with some legal problems, there's a lawyer there you should hook up with - he works by delusional osmosis also. :p

[t_niehoff]

Cheung needed a name to market his unique take on WCK (nothing wrong with that in and of itself) -- but selling something of your own creation to TMAists isn't a good idea: they want older, original, secret, fantasy stuff. So he created a story (actually, stole it is more accurate since the same story has been used before on other martial arts) that he claimed was history, of an older form of WCK that was secretly passed down, was secretly taught to him, had secret techniques, secret theory, etc. And he named it "Traditional Wing Chun" to appeal to those TMAists who crave older, traditional, etc., as opposed what he called "modified WCK" that everyone else had. Of course, none of this could never be verified or proved (as it wasn't true) and it falls apart under scrutiny and common sense.

[LoneTiger108]

HOW I DELUDED MYSELF INTO THINKING THAT WILLIAM CHEUNG SHOULD GIVE UP THE NAME "TRADITIONAL WING CHUN" BECAUSE I'M THE LONE TIGER AND I DON'T LIKE IT.

Wow! Amazing how people interpret simple sentences. Did I actually say I didn't like it? No. Noticed you didn't quote this though, so here goes again:

"Well, I personally would have NEVER guessed in a million years that this list is what constitutes 'Traditional Wing Chun'. This means that 'Modern Wing Chun' is Siu Lim Tao, Chum Kiu, 108 Wooden Man? I, IMHO, think not..."

I was referring directly to a list of concepts posted by anerlich, but you fail to mention that also. As for the legal issues, I don't think I'll ever just 'find myself' in St. Louis either as i've already had my moment of enlightenment here in London. Actually I have them all the time, which I put down to my Wing Chun learning.

[Ultimatewingchun]

It's Cute the way you left out this part:

"As for the texts/books you mention, I don't believe they will be anything like the literature I study. Its a very personal thing for me to even mention it within these threads, and I only ever seem to hit a wall of silence."


:rolleyes: :cool: :p

[LoneTiger108]

It's Cute the way you left out this part:

"As for the texts/books you mention, I don't believe they will be anything like the literature I study. Its a very personal thing for me to even mention it within these threads, and I only ever seem to hit a wall of silence."


:rolleyes: :cool: :p

Well, you've got me there lol! Nice to know you actually read it though as I felt that part wasn't worth mentioning again. My misjudgement obviously.

Cute though? Mmmmmm

[anerlich]

Well, I personally would have NEVER guessed in a million years that this list is what constitutes 'Traditional Wing Chun'. This means that 'Modern Wing Chun' is Siu Lim Tao, Chum Kiu, 108 Wooden Man? I, IMHO, think not...


You asked the question. Not my fault you're a crap guesser. I'm looking for a reason to care what you think or take you or your "humble" opinion seriously, but it's not real easy.


As for the texts/books you mention, I don't believe they will be anything like the literature I study. Its a very personal thing for me to even mention it within these threads, and I only ever seem to hit a wall of silence.

If you want to talk about the texts you study, go ahead. If you want to just allude to some load of "secret" drivel that's "personal" and you "don't want to talk about", don't mention it at all and just shut the he11 up.


Back to the thread though, if it's just about William Cheungs 'Brand' of Wing Chun, why don't you just create another thread with a more suitable title?


I didn't create the thread, you nitwit. The person who did seemed to know what he was asking about, as did just about everyone except you.

Everyone but the clueless (got a mirror handy?) knew exactly what it was about. William Cheung's Traditional Wing Chun (TM). There is nothing wrong with the title. People have been referring to it that way on the WWW for over ten years, it's trademarked, its common usage.

The only person with a problem seems to be someone who's been in the forum five minutes but has the arrogance to think he can dictate how discussions should be conducted and what terms are appropriate.

Why don't you create this fascinating :rolleyes: new thread, if this one's title got your panties in such a bunch?

[LoneTiger108]

If you want to talk about the texts you study, go ahead. If you want to just allude to some load of "secret" drivel that's "personal" and you "don't want to talk about", don't mention it at all and just shut the he11 up.

Why don't you create this fascinating :rolleyes: new thread, if this one's title got your panties in such a bunch?

I think I did see after some scrolling that I entered this thread totally clueless to what the intent was by its creator, must've jumped straight in to the final post rather than looking at the whole thread.

After I discovered my foolishness I did start a new one though, where I have shared some of my secret drivel;

http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48517&page=2