PDA

View Full Version : Some YMWCK historical theorizing



KPM
02-09-2008, 04:42 PM
Hey Rene!

---I thought I would break this out to another thread, since it is off-topic on the HFY thread.

You wrote:
That's a whole other kettle of politics. They were friends and neighbors in Foshan, and when Yip Man's house caught fire, YKS and YKS's sons helped put it out, and then gave Yip Man a place to stay while repairs were done.
There was an eventual falling out, though efforts were made to patch it up later, but YKS soon passed away.

---Which was exactly my point. They had a relationship in China and very likely did some training together. But you note they had a "falling out." This would be a good reason to not give YKS credit for the influence he had on YM's Wing Chun and instead change the name to "Leung Bik." I also understand that Sum Nun and Yip Man weren't on the best of terms. That might be another reason for not mentioning YKS in later stories.

(This is the period where Luk Sao was rumored to have been developed, with different factions claiming one taught the other or vice versa, or that they came up with it together. There was a large disagreement in the HK press about this back in the 70s, with Yuen Jo-Tong writing a letter and sending packets of historical info to New Martial Hero to present his side).

---Wasn't the conclusion that it had likely been YKS who had developed Luk Sao and shared it with Yip Man? And that Yip Man later developed the Dan Chi Sao on his own?

In my experience, however, the choreography is similar enough as to suggest shared ancestry at some point, but the method of power generation and general mechanics are different enough that I think this shared ancestry had to predate Yip Man or Chan Wah-Shun. I don't think it would have changed so much (even if both branches changed in different directions simultaneously) in that space of time.

---But how do you think Kenneth Chung's WCK compares to YKS/SN WCK? I find them similar, though I am not as familiar with YKS WCK as I would like. Do you think my theory is full of holes, or does it have some supporting evidence? You know the history and various systems of WCK much better than I do!

---As far as the WSL story goes......I understood it to say that the SNT Yip Man learned from "Leung Bik" had Tan to Chum to Tan, while the SNT he learned from CWS had it as Tan to Gan to Tan. The story was that LB, being a small man never needed to use a Gan much because he was so short while CWS, being a large man, needed the Gan to defend the lower gate against shorter opponents. How is it that the story doesn't add up? I'm afraid I didn't follow you.

Thanks!

KPM
02-09-2008, 04:45 PM
Just in case anyone else is interesting in some "flights of fancy" and historical theorizing, I made the following post on the HFY thread that Rene responded to that lead this this thread:



Tony wrote:
Visible evidence of different styles emanating from one teacher exist in the chain of succession of but not limited to that of Leung Jan to Gulao in contrast to Leung Jan to Leung Bik to Yip Man to William Cheung and Leung Jan to Chan Wah Shun to Yuen Kay San. Something to think about do these originate from the same source do they each look and feel different.

---For what its worth.....Yuen Kay Shan did not learn from Chan Wah Shun as your post seems to suggest. But overall, I agree with your point.


Victor wrote:
Now accoding to Yip Chun, in one of his books I have, the title of which escapes me at the moment, his father did learn different refinements from Leung Bik....but that it did not constitute anything resembling TWC.
Is Yip Chun correct?

---I now tend to think "yes"! I recently watched Dave Peterson's SNT seminar video. On it he mentions that at nearly every SNT seminar he gave, Wong Shun Leung brought up the story of how the Gan Sao was added to the SNT form after he was struck by a low blow during a match. He tells that the version of SNT that Yip Man learned from Leung Bik did not include Gan Sao, while the one that he learned from CWS did. I used to think that the Leung Bik story was strictly a "marketing" story used to increase YMWCK's popularity back in the day. But there would be no obvious "marketing" reason for WSL to continue to tell this story years later.

---So I am leaning towards the idea that Yip Man really did learn something different from "someone" as compared to what he learned from CWS. I think that if you look at the WCK done by YM students from various stages of his career you can see a difference. Granted, he very likely blended together elements from both "styles" of WCK when he taught, but you can see a difference in some of his students. I tend to think that the "Leung Bik" style was a bit more evasive and "softer." More like what a small man or woman would do. I think this is represented the most clearly today through Leung Sheung's lineage in Kenneth Chung and Leung Ting. In contrast, I think the "Chan Wah Shun" style is more direct and powerful. More like what a large man would do. I think this is represented most clearly today through lineages such as Wong Shun Leung, Ho Kam Ming, etc. Some lineages seem to be more "blended" and hard to categorized either way. I note that the "Leung Bik" style as I see it, is more similar to mainland styles like Yuen Kay Shan/Sum Nung WCK. So I also don't see it as too big of a stretch to think that "Leung Bik" may have been an invented story to cover for someone else. That "someone else" may very well have been Yuen Kay Shan. Yip Man is noted to have been friends with and trained with YKS while in China. He may not have wanted to claim to close a connection to YKS for various reasons. Maybe because YKS didn't approve use of his name or his WCK, or because YKS was the "competition." Regardless, Yuen Kay Shan could have easily become "Leung Bik" when stories were told in Hong Kong. I say write this because I do see two distinct "styles" in Yip Man's 1st generation students, and one of them bears some resemblance in biomechanics to YKS WCK.



But we do know this much: there's no evidence anywhere that Leung Bik taught this TWC system to anyone else...

---And this may very well be because "names were changed to protect the innocent" and Leung Bik is really Yuen Kay Shan!

and no evidence anywhere that Yip Man did anything with this TWC for all those years he was teaching except William Cheung's claim that he taught him privately.

---Exactly! I see two "styles" of WCK represented in YM's 1st generation students, and neither of them resemble TWC. So my version of things still leaves us wondering where TWC came from.

AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS PURE SPECULATION - OR WORSE YET - PETTY EGO POLITICS.

---Certainly what I have written is pure speculation! But when we apply Occam's Razor, some speculations seem more likely than others. But in the end, as Terence says, we are just speculating about Fairy Tales unless we can find some kind of real documentation. And how likely is that to happen????

Liddel
02-09-2008, 06:05 PM
Wong Shun Leung brought up the story of how the Gan Sao was added to the SNT form after he was struck by a low blow during a match. He tells that the version of SNT that Yip Man learned from Leung Bik did not include Gan Sao, while the one that he learned from CWS did.

My Sifu told me of this story years ago. Prior to me joining this forum or me even speaking to people outside my own school. It was something id seen WSL students do and i asked him why.....
He was present at the fight where WSL was winded and discussed with WSL post fight the addition of Guarn Sao to his SLT with the 'old man' over dinner.



if you look at the WCK done by YM students from various stages of his career you can see a difference. Granted, he very likely blended together elements from both "styles" of WCK when he taught, but you can see a difference in some of his students. I tend to think that the "Leung Bik" style was a bit more evasive and "softer." More like what a small man or woman would do. I think this is represented the most clearly today through Leung Sheung's lineage in Kenneth Chung and Leung Ting. In contrast, I think the "Chan Wah Shun" style is more direct and powerful. More like what a large man would do. I think this is represented most clearly today through lineages such as Wong Shun Leung, Ho Kam Ming, etc. Some lineages seem to be more "blended" and hard to categorized either way.

My take is that both style elements were taught as one whole VT kuen. Different people took up and used what was good for them, based on physical preference and who actually taught them.....
The fact that YM had senior students and in typical tradition let them teach newer students as his assistant instructors, does muddy the waters in trying to piece together the origins of things.
Also many students were not martial art virgins....they had the bases from other styles they practiced before discovering VT.
YKS included from what im told....



But we do know this much: there's no evidence anywhere that Leung Bik taught this TWC system to anyone else... EDIT
and no evidence anywhere that Yip Man did anything with this TWC for all those years he was teaching except William Cheung's claim that he taught him privately. EDIT
I see two "styles" of WCK represented in YM's 1st generation students, and neither of them resemble TWC. So my version of things still leaves us wondering where TWC came from.

Ive been to other VT schools in my area and not said that i have any previous MA or VT experience to see what they had without them trying to 'show me up'.

I found it very hard to disguise my skill when doing the basic stuff and it certainly tests your patience...
Its reversing your natural actions, freakin difficult IMO.

So with this in mind, i personally find it hard to believe that someone could one,
-keep this awesome secret for so long and not tell one of your bros, and two
-not have elements of it surface when training with others that would make them curious :rolleyes:

My Sifu knew Bill and his brother Cheung King Gong(sp?), who also did VT (bought from GM Ip) but no one talks about him :rolleyes: Did he get TWC or VT ?

Where it came from is interesting, but irrelevant IMO - is it effective thats the key....

DREW

reneritchie
02-09-2008, 07:42 PM
Hi Keith,

I believe Sum Nung and Yip Man were mostly on good terms. Sum Nung visited HK before China closed the borders, did a brief seminar on locks and throws, and had dinner with Yip Man sifu. It's my understanding that this is when a lot of stuff got patched up in terms of Mainland relations as well.

Since I wasn't there, I can't conclude who did what or how the credit pie gets sliced up for Luk Sao. Other branches (including Cho and Koolo) do the inside/outside hands for Chi Sao, Yip Man does Luk Sao, and Sum Nung does both. So, Luk Sao seems to have evolved (it's not that different from what came before, a logical extension in one direction sacrificing specificity and isolation of economy and combination) at some point after the Red Junks (where Cho split), after Leung Jan (where Koolo split), and before Yip Man's and Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung's students. That's as far as circumstantial evidence takes us, I think (and I don't want Terence to open up a can a whup@$$ on me if I start making speculation unlabeled as such :)

Ken Chung's (indeed, students of Leung Sheung in general, and I'd say Jack Ling in particular) tend to do most of the body postures more similar to YKS/SN than I've seen from other Yip Man branches. However, the bridge shapes (i.e. Tan Sao, Bong Sao) and the power generation (at least Chung sifu, I don't remember Ling sifu's method as well) is still different to an extent that there doesn't seem to be a direct connection.

And that is the problem with the WSL story -- YKS/SN uses Tun/Jum/Tun (no Gaun), as does most of Foshan WCK if memory serves. If Chan Wah-Shun hadn't taught it that way, I think the other version would have been the wide-spread one. It looks like if Yip Man had learned a version from CWS, it would have been the Tan/Chum/Tan as well...

hunt1
02-09-2008, 08:25 PM
Just thought I would add that Yip Man did teach what Rene calls the inside/outside hands method to at least a small number of his students. I was first exposed to that method by one of Yips students that told me he learned it from Yip Man. This was many years ago.

KPM
02-10-2008, 08:16 AM
Hey Drew!

My Sifu told me of this story years ago. Prior to me joining this forum or me even speaking to people outside my own school. It was something id seen WSL students do and i asked him why.....
He was present at the fight where WSL was winded and discussed with WSL post fight the addition of Guarn Sao to his SLT with the 'old man' over dinner.

---Interesting! Thanks for that feedback.


My take is that both style elements were taught as one whole VT kuen. Different people took up and used what was good for them, based on physical preference and who actually taught them.....

---Could be true to an extent. But the two "styles" that I see in what Yip Man taught have some pretty significant biomechanical differences. One pivots on the K1 point near the ball of the foot and does a 30/70 to 0/100 weight shift, while the other pivots on the heel and does a 50/50 weight shift. I could be wrong, but I tend to think that differences that big would come down to how one is taught more than personal preference.


I found it very hard to disguise my skill when doing the basic stuff and it certainly tests your patience...
Its reversing your natural actions, freakin difficult IMO.
So with this in mind, i personally find it hard to believe that someone could one,
-keep this awesome secret for so long and not tell one of your bros, and two
-not have elements of it surface when training with others that would make them curious :rolleyes:

----I agree with you and have had the same thoughts over the years myself. I've always wondered how it could be that Yip Man knew a version of WCK that he taught only to William Cheung and yet elements of it did not show up in his WCK at other times. How do you "stifle" or hide biomechanics that....according to William Cheung....are superior to what you are doing and teaching everyone else on a daily basis? And why would you want to?

KPM
02-10-2008, 08:27 AM
Hey Rene!

---Thanks for the reply!

I believe Sum Nung and Yip Man were mostly on good terms. Sum Nung visited HK before China closed the borders, did a brief seminar on locks and throws, and had dinner with Yip Man sifu. It's my understanding that this is when a lot of stuff got patched up in terms of Mainland relations as well.

---Thanks for that feedback.

Since I wasn't there, I can't conclude who did what or how the credit pie gets sliced up for Luk Sao. Other branches (including Cho and Koolo) do the inside/outside hands for Chi Sao, Yip Man does Luk Sao, and Sum Nung does both. So, Luk Sao seems to have evolved (it's not that different from what came before, a logical extension in one direction sacrificing specificity and isolation of economy and combination) at some point after the Red Junks (where Cho split), after Leung Jan (where Koolo split), and before Yip Man's and Yuen Kay-San/Sum Nung's students. That's as far as circumstantial evidence takes us, I think (and I don't want Terence to open up a can a whup@$$ on me if I start making speculation unlabeled as such :)

---But that does narrow the list of candidates significantly. That essentially leaves.......Chan Wah Shun, Fok Bo Kuen, Yuen Kay Shan, and Yip Man. Did I leave anyone out?

Ken Chung's (indeed, students of Leung Sheung in general, and I'd say Jack Ling in particular) tend to do most of the body postures more similar to YKS/SN than I've seen from other Yip Man branches. However, the bridge shapes (i.e. Tan Sao, Bong Sao) and the power generation (at least Chung sifu, I don't remember Ling sifu's method as well) is still different to an extent that there doesn't seem to be a direct connection.

---But how direct is "direct"? Obviously they weren't taught by YKS or SN, so it would be by definition an indirect link. I think its likely that neither of the two "styles" that I'm proposing that YM taught were "pure" in the sense that one would be entirely what Leung Bik (or YSK) taught and the other entirely what CWS taught. I see what YM taught over his career as being a spectrum with the "softer/female/Leung Bik" version at one end of the spectrum and the "powerful/male/CWS" version at the other and shades of gray in between. Biomechanically I see it as those that pivot near the ball of the foot into a 0/100 weight distribution at one end of the spectrum and those that pivot on the heel with a 50/50 weight distribution at the other end.

And that is the problem with the WSL story -- YKS/SN uses Tun/Jum/Tun (no Gaun), as does most of Foshan WCK if memory serves. If Chan Wah-Shun hadn't taught it that way, I think the other version would have been the wide-spread one. It looks like if Yip Man had learned a version from CWS, it would have been the Tan/Chum/Tan as well...

---So then who would have been the one to invent the story that WSL told and why? Was Yip Man just pulling his leg?

dfl
02-10-2008, 06:25 PM
---But that does narrow the list of candidates significantly. That essentially leaves.......Chan Wah Shun, Fok Bo Kuen, Yuen Kay Shan, and Yip Man. Did I leave anyone out?


Yes, you did. You left out Ng Chung So, who was YM's de facto teacher in the early years and his constant training partner since.



My Sifu knew Bill and his brother Cheung King Gong(sp?), who also did VT (bought from GM Ip) but no one talks about him Did he get TWC or VT ?


Based on this chum kiu from a grand student of Cheung King Gong, I would say it's closer to VT (assuming it's a reasonable facsimile of the original). Besides, wasn't William Cheung the only one to get the TWC transmission?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILw_jNI1iGk

There may be a simple explanation for the diversity in YM's students:
1. he did not teach everyone hands on, which means
2. he left a lot of the instruction to his more senior students around at the time. so these more junior students would more reflect the skill of their seniors than their supposed teacher
3. he did not care much about quality control
4. the students came with their own preconceived ideas and pursued WC with those ideas in mind
5. the students have their own insights during/after their instruction
6. all of the above

I don't know about you, but since the time I've been with my teacher, I have seen a lot of students come and go, and I can tell you while some are very good, others never got the right idea, or did not make the commitment necessary to be able to acquire the skill. And this is from a teacher who's known for his teaching skills. For someone less willing to share, it can be expected the results will vary all over the map.

I don't agree with Hendrik about these supposed different "male/female" versions. For one thing, Leung Yi Tai, despite his female sounding name, was described as a sailor, who, presumably, had some special muscles to guide the boats and wield the pole. Looking at that Pun Yu Cho video, if I haven't seen Hendrik's version, I might think Cho's WC is all "male". ;-)

I think there's only 1 version taught, it's the student who interprets it differently. When I look at someone who does WC descended from YM, I try to imagine YM himself doing it. And if a small (5'2"), old (60+), frail (110 lb.) man cannot make use of the motion, it most likely did not come from YM himself, but is something that person, or someone along the line, came up with that suits his own body attributes (I think that's what Hendrik calls "local evolution").

reneritchie
02-10-2008, 06:32 PM
DFL makes the kind of sense that does.

Very good overview, Dan! Elderly men not in the best of shape or health making high-level use of something is very practical filter.

@KPM:

They all used to hang around the same smoke house and tea house (I believe the Cho's even visited Yip Man and Yuen Kay-San there on occasion). Small town, closed system, everyone with their own system and secrets (no video back then, so even if you both had the same stuff, if you never showed it, you might believe the other person didn't have it).

I know Jim and Hendrik like the female/male split, but I also think it depended on the individual. Cheung Bo did very macho WCK, but favored the flanking. IMHO, all facets of the same art.

KPM
02-10-2008, 06:34 PM
Hey dfl!

Yes, you did. You left out Ng Chung So, who was YM's de facto teacher in the early years and his constant training partner since.

---Yes! You are absolutely right. And upon reflection, I should probably include Sum Nun on that list as well.

Based on this chum kiu from a grand student of Cheung King Gong, I would say it's closer to VT (assuming it's a reasonable facsimile of the original). Besides, wasn't William Cheung the only one to get the TWC transmission?


I don't know about you, but since the time I've been with my teacher, I have seen a lot of students come and go, and I can tell you while some are very good, others never got the right idea, or did not make the commitment necessary to be able to acquire the skill. And this is from a teacher who's known for his teaching skills. For someone less willing to share, it can be expected the results will vary all over the map.

---Yes. You could very well be right! But I tend to think that biomechanical aspects as different as K1 pivoting with 0/100 weight distro vs. heel pivoting with 50/50 weight distro would represent more than just personal preferences of individuals.

reneritchie
02-10-2008, 08:30 PM
Like I said Keith, old joke is they dropped tiles:

K1 for you!
Heel for you!

Ha! I got 50/50.
Double Ha! I got inside wrist rotation!
Doh!

drleungjohn
02-10-2008, 09:46 PM
Is that suppose to be David Cheung?

Liddel
02-10-2008, 09:58 PM
Is that suppose to be David Cheung?

Its Williams Brother i was refering to, dont know his english name......

Cheung seems to be a popular name IMO... TWC peeps would know, i talked to phil about it a while back in a Jong thread.

Liddel
02-10-2008, 10:10 PM
---Could be true to an extent. But the two "styles" that I see in what Yip Man taught have some pretty significant biomechanical differences. One pivots on the K1 point near the ball of the foot and does a 30/70 to 0/100 weight shift, while the other pivots on the heel and does a 50/50 weight shift. I could be wrong, but I tend to think that differences that big would come down to how one is taught more than personal preference.

Thats a fair call, although aspects like people 'learning by watching' rather than learning directly from a sifu could account for these things in Ips School at least, quite popular because of the lengthy learning duration, people get impatient...
as well as elements of peoples initial styles comming into play, being the origin of prefference :rolleyes:

Yip told my sifu once that Leung Jan used to travel back to his home town for vacations and because he was so famous got bugged by everyone for tuition.

If you learnt from a teacher every time he was in town you may need to fill some gaps on your own when hes away etc etc and it may become habbit by the time he returns...speculation of course.....;)



----I agree with you and have had the same thoughts over the years myself. I've always wondered how it could be that Yip Man knew a version of WCK that he taught only to William Cheung and yet elements of it did not show up in his WCK at other times. How do you "stifle" or hide biomechanics that....according to William Cheung....are superior to what you are doing and teaching everyone else on a daily basis? And why would you want to?

Whats an even more stretch of the imagination is the "story" of Leung Jan teaching his own sons the 'wrong' way while CWS was secretly watching....

This suposes he purposly made his sons train incorrectly because someone was watching.....common sence would dictate hed just call him out and not waste everyones time :rolleyes:

It just doesnt fly with me personally.

DREW

hunt1
02-11-2008, 07:06 AM
Liddel, the Leung Jan teaching CWS differently only works if LJ only had his sons and CWS as students. However he had several other students in Fatshan as well.

Jim Roselando
02-11-2008, 07:20 AM
Rene,


I know Jim and Hendrik like the female/male split, but I also think it depended on the individual. Cheung Bo did very macho WCK, but favored the flanking. IMHO, all facets of the same art.

*

The female/male split is IMO the Paradigm shift of WC. I firmly believe that the two arts are Ultra similar and just because we can pin point the shift it doesn't mean to me that there is much difference. From my research I would say very little is actually different.

The Male version had a little more Shape and Crisp to it and stressed Jing Sun application.

The Female version had a little less noticeable so-called WC shape to it and practice their solo a bit less Crispy. This version stress more Pin Sun application.

Other than that the only other big difference is Conditioning & Dynamics.

Leung Jan being schooled in both said:

They are both from the same family (that being Yim/Leung) and the hands differ very little!

I belive he was correct.

Gotta run!

LoneTiger108
02-11-2008, 08:03 AM
But that does narrow the list of candidates significantly. That essentially leaves.......Chan Wah Shun, Fok Bo Kuen, Yuen Kay Shan, and Yip Man. Did I leave anyone out?


Yes, you did. You left out Ng Chung So, who was YM's de facto teacher in the early years and his constant training partner since.

I find this thread very interesting, especially the references to Luksau and a varied progression of the standard WC Seed in Chisau practise (Tan, Bong, Fook cycles etc) We rotate a Bong, Tan, Fook seed during Luksau which has a completely different feel and power generation imho depending on what you want to achieve. I've always understood the Tan, Bong, Fook cycle to be destructive and Bong, Tan, Fook to be creative. In other words, one cycle for 'application' and another for 'training/therapy'. An equal balance of both is preferred.

Am I also correct to think that if you're looking for the flavour of the mainland in todays practitioners my Sigung Lee Shing should have a mention?? I mean, he learnt from Fung Sang and was very influenced by Ng Chung So as far as I've heard. Not to mention others like Lok Yiu, Jiu Wan and finally Ip Man.

Out of interest, others may also like to know that we do share a similarity with the WSL SLT idea of the lower Gaan Sau. We actually use saam tan sau aiming at the high, mid and lower paths (lwr Gaan is literally 'passed through') but this wasn't something that Lee Shing 'added' as far as I know. Due to his many influences it is unclear as to where he learnt everything, but reading threads like this often help to open my eyes wider than they're used to and I see connection after connection on a daily basis. All a bit overwhelming really.

FWIW The Wing Chun style I know of HAS to be a combination of both Male and Female strengths, just as it needs to portray and explain the animal characteristics of the Snake and Crane. WC is a Yin Yang combination. An early MMA experiment utilized by a husband and wife team. Taught to many but understood by few imho...

KPM
02-11-2008, 12:45 PM
Hey Spencer!

I've always ubnderstood the Tan, Bong, Fook cycle to be destructive and Bong, Tan, Fook to be creative. In other words, one cycle for 'application' and another for 'training/therapy'. An equal balance of both is preferred.

---I'm not sure what you mean here? The Chi Sao rolling platforms we have been talking about from an historical perspective are distinct. One (which I have called "Poon Sao" in the past) is seen as the older version. It is also sometimes called "Huen Chi Sao." It is the "side to side" rolling seen in Pin Sun WCK and many other southern styles. I even have a friend that is a 6th degree BB in Ed Parker's Kenpo that was taught it. The other rolling platform (which I have called "Luk Sao" in the past) is the one that uses the Tan/Bong/Fook cycle. If one has done both, it is easy to see how the Luk Sao roll could evolve directly from the Poon/Huen Sao roll. The theory we have been considering is who would be the likely candidate to make the jump and develop Luk Sao from Poon/Huen Sao. Prior to Yip Man making WCK popular in HK and elsehwhere, the only WCK styles that used the Luk Sao roll were his and YKS. After YMWCK became well-known, the Luk Sao roll starting popping up in lots of places as people incorporated it into what they did....again, because once you see it, it is an easy transition from the Poon/Huen Sao roll to the Luk Sao roll. I'm pretty sure Lee Shing WCK does both, and therefore pretty sure you know what I'm saying. :) But what I'm not sure of is whether the "destructive" and the "creative" cycles you are talking about are the same thing. :confused:

Am I also correct to think that if you're looking for the flavour of the mainland in todays practitioners my Sigung Lee Shing should have a mention?? I mean, he learnt from Fung Sang and was very influenced by Ng Chung So as far as I've heard. Not to mention others like Lok Yiu, Jiu Wan and finally Ip Man.

---No. Not looking for a "flavor." Looking for who may have been the developer. Lee Shing came later, so he isn't in the running.

reneritchie
02-11-2008, 12:52 PM
KPM:

The nasty political arguing and story-telling back in the 60s and 70s centered around Yip Man and Yuen Kay-San. So you can slide on the sun glasses and begin the CSI: Fatshan credits on them... :)

LoneTiger108
02-11-2008, 01:38 PM
The theory we have been considering is who would be the likely candidate to make the jump and develop Luk Sao from Poon/Huen Sao. Prior to Yip Man making WCK popular in HK and elsehwhere, the only WCK styles that used the Luk Sao roll were his and YKS. After YMWCK became well-known, the Luk Sao roll starting popping up in lots of places as people incorporated it into what they did....again, because once you see it, it is an easy transition from the Poon/Huen Sao roll to the Luk Sao roll. I'm pretty sure Lee Shing WCK does both, and therefore pretty sure you know what I'm saying. :) But what I'm not sure of is whether the "destructive" and the "creative" cycles you are talking about are the same thing. :confused:

It's what I was attempting to imply, yes. I'm not trying to form a definitive answer here, as information like this is always a bit sketchy but what I am saying is that as far as I'm aware Lee Shing had always taught these two distinctive ways to interact. It definately wasn't something added after WCK became so popular. I'm also not too sure, I don't think anyone is, of exactly how long Lee Shing had studied Wing Chun before joining Ip Man in the early fifties and coming to the UK from HK. I wouldn't write him off so soon as one of the developers of interactive training.

In earlier times I was lucky to have been shown certain literature that highlighted my training in WCK. Two lines come to mind here:

Siip Dai Luk Sau - receive and stop with rotating hand
Jiin Wan Chi Sau - extend and encircle with sticking hand

This is how I would explain the Yin Yang / destructive creative cycles. When training we tended to prefer the luksau rotation for defense and the chisau rotation for attack. This makes sense to me and explains our over eagerness to be happy with chisau alone. The problems only surface if you attempt chisau on someone skilled in luksau. 'Theoretically' this should create a balanced fusion, the chisau constantly adjusts and changes to make an attack and the luksau stands firm and needs less change to be able to defend.

At this point I have to stress, the luksau I know is constructed of a bong, tan, fook rotation which is very easy and natural to train. It makes sense that this be inroduced first due to its simple softer defensive nature. The chisau however (tan, bong, fook rotation) is harder to learn and drill into the body as it doesn't flow as easily, but once set is very offensive and hard in nature.

I'll ask anyone to try these two rotations and see for yourself. I know what I feel, but again I can't be sure of who introduced what. I feel that they are both equally important at the beginning yet I can remember my older brothers had not even heard of the btf rotation and had only ever learnt a tbf platform of chisau. Once they undertood the differences, they were pretty awe inspiring! But I am biased I suppose ;)

KPM
02-11-2008, 02:47 PM
Hey Spencer!

It's what I was attempting to imply, yes. I'm not trying to form a definitive answer here, as information like this is always a bit sketchy but what I am saying is that as far as I'm aware Lee Shing had always taught these two distinctive ways to interact. It definately wasn't something added after WCK became so popular.

---I think you missed my point somewhere. It makes sense that Lee Shing had both ways to roll....the Poon Sao roll from his Pin Sun WCK connection and the Luk Sao roll from his Yip Man connection. The timeframe we are considering is before Yip Man went to HK or started teaching. It would have been a generation prior to Lee Shing. To my knowledge, Lee Shing was not a contemporary of Yip Man and Yuen Kay Shan, but was much younger.

I'm also not too sure, I don't think anyone is, of exactly how long Lee Shing had studied Wing Chun before joining Ip Man in the early fifties and coming to the UK from HK. I wouldn't write him off so soon as one of the developers of interactive training.

---I'm not sure what you mean by "interactive training." I've strictly been referring to the development of the Luk Sao rolling platform from the prior and widely used Poon/Huen Sao rolling platform.


At this point I have to stress, the luksau I know is constructed of a bong, tan, fook rotation which is very easy and natural to train. It makes sense that this be inroduced first due to its simple softer defensive nature. The chisau however (tan, bong, fook rotation) is harder to learn and drill into the body as it doesn't flow as easily, but once set is very offensive and hard in nature.

---I'm afraid I'm still not clear what you are talking about. :confused: B/T/F vs. T/B/F....what's the difference? Are you talking about the Poon/Huen Sao rolling vs. the Luk Sao rolling? If so, then which is which? I don't see the Poon/Huen Sao roll as really including a bong/tan/fook cycle like the Luk Sao roll does. Its primarily Huen!

KPM
02-11-2008, 02:58 PM
KPM:

The nasty political arguing and story-telling back in the 60s and 70s centered around Yip Man and Yuen Kay-San. So you can slide on the sun glasses and begin the CSI: Fatshan credits on them... :)


One more reason to think that any YKS connection to YM's WCK may have been covered up by the Leung Bik story in order to save face. :cool:


Let's take the tact that Drew suggested. Its hard to cover up or suppress trained reactions and responses. Let's assume that the WCK that YM seems to have taught the majority of his students (the pivot on the heels with 50/50 weight distro, powerful techniques up the middle) is the "baseline." Now lets assume that the "other" WCK he learned came out at various times, and that different students picked up on it to a greater or lesser extent based on personal preferrences. If we look for the "departures" from the "baseline", what I see looks much more like YKS WCK than TWC! Maybe Leung Bik was a real person and the WCK he did was much like YSK WCK. This would match what we know of LJ's art thru Pin Sun WCK. Or maybe Leung Bik was a cover story for things that YM didn't want to reveal from his past. Either way, I just don't see YM practicing and teaching what we now know as TWC. But that's just me! :eek:

LoneTiger108
02-11-2008, 03:12 PM
---I'm not sure what you mean by "interactive training." I've strictly been referring to the development of the Luk Sao rolling platform from the prior and widely used Poon/Huen Sao rolling platform.

---I'm afraid I'm still not clear what you are talking about. :confused: B/T/F vs. T/B/F....what's the difference? Are you talking about the Poon/Huen Sao rolling vs. the Luk Sao rolling? If so, then which is which? I don't see the Poon/Huen Sao roll as really including a bong/tan/fook cycle like the Luk Sao roll does. Its primarily Huen!

The Poon/Huen, Luk Sao rolling platform you talk of is what I would refer to as 'interactive' training or Doi Lien in cantonese. Similar to two-man sets in Wushu (dulien) I see all chisau practise in this way. Sets against sets. Circles against straight lines etc.

B/T/F Vs T/B/F? Now don't go getting me confused! :confused: These things are easier to 'show' and I've still to get that camera lol! It's all in my mind I suppose. A btf cycle can also be tfb & fbt. A tbf cycle can also be bft & ftb. Both completely different looks and feel. Not too different from the pole & knives imho. Have you tried it out?

Left Hand - start at fook sau. Cycle to fook sau by rotating the arm from fook to bong, bong to tan, and tan back to fook. Repeat until you hear and feel the wind :D

Repeat with alternating variations on both sides and you'll find, what I have been refering to as 'luksau' ;)

reneritchie
02-11-2008, 03:19 PM
Leung Bik is a mystery.

In Fatshan, Yip Man's early students never heard of a Leung Bik. In HK, Leung Sheung's students claim the first they heard of a Leung Bik was when Leung Ting brought them the story a long time later.

Pan Nam's documents claim Leung Bik died young and Leung Chun had little aptitude for WCK and didn't learn.

Sum Nung remembered hearing Leung Bik fell out of a window at a young age and died.

Wang Kiu made a statement that Leung Bik was created by Lee Man as a way to more closely tie Yip Man (unknown in HK, teaching a little known art), with the folk hero Leung Jan, and that Yip Man didn't care about marketing and said they could do whatever they like.

A connection to Yip Chun added that, publicly, there was a set story and no one should contradict it (publicly).

Lastly, in his own written history of WCK, Yip Man never mentioned Leung Bik, crediting only Chan Wah-Shun, and his (Yip Man's) sihing.

On the flip side, several of Yip Man's students specifically mention a Leung Bik connection, and Leung Ting's interview with Yip Man specifically mentions him (Yip Man) learning from Leung Bik.

So, unless CSI: Fatshan goes to HK, finds school records for Yip Man showing he was at St. Stephan's, and matching employment records for a Leung Bik at the docks during the same period, it will probably remain one of the many, many, many WCK mysteries...

Personally, since Yip Man's art looks pretty much like solid, Fatsan WCK to me, I don't know if it really matters whether he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, Ng Chung-So, and/or Leung Bik, as the stuff he passed on has been proven useful by generations, and the high skill level many of his students obtained doesn't really make "history" a needful thing.

Vajramusti
02-11-2008, 04:59 PM
Personally, since Yip Man's art looks pretty much like solid, Fatsan WCK to me,

((Ip man's wing chun looks pretty unique to me. Each to his own))

I don't know if it really matters whether he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, Ng Chung-So, and/or Leung Bik, as the stuff he passed on has been proven useful by generations, and the high skill level many of his students obtained doesn't really make "history" a needful thing.


((True that. RATHER-MUCH TO THAT. But chit chat fills internet space and vacuums ))

joy chaudhuri

KPM
02-11-2008, 05:12 PM
Personally, since Yip Man's art looks pretty much like solid, Fatsan WCK to me, I don't know if it really matters whether he learned from Chan Wah-Shun, Ng Chung-So, and/or Leung Bik, as the stuff he passed on has been proven useful by generations, and the high skill level many of his students obtained doesn't really make "history" a needful thing.

--Very true! But then we wouldn't be able to go off into speculative flights of fancy and drive Terence up the wall! :D

reneritchie
02-11-2008, 07:41 PM
Driving Terence up the wall is only reason anyone posts anything on the interwebs...

LoneTiger108
02-12-2008, 07:17 AM
Driving Terence up the wall is only reason anyone posts anything on the interwebs...

I actually get paid to do it! :D

Still, he has some very valid points to make sometimes. To himself ;)

reneritchie
02-12-2008, 09:48 AM
As I mentioned previously, if people aren't disagreeing with you, you're in the wrong place. Imagine weight lifting with no resistance. It's the mental exercise that makes us all better.

(Notice I refrained from any dvorak.org/blog jokes...)

t_niehoff
02-12-2008, 10:25 AM
RR, I think it greatly depends on the sort of "mental exercise".

People can put all kinds of mental energy and effort into nonsense, and it won't develop anything "better" -- just more nonsense.

If you are after anything resembling truth or moving toward truth, then you need to "exercise" critical thinking skills.

sanjuro_ronin
02-12-2008, 10:35 AM
The problem with most critical thinkers is that they either forget or don't acknowledge context or even the subjectivity of what THEY may see as "truth" or "fact".

t_niehoff
02-12-2008, 10:59 AM
The problem with most critical thinkers is that they either forget or don't acknowledge context or even the subjectivity of what THEY may see as "truth" or "fact".

Truth -- reality -- isn't relative or subjective. If it was, the world/universe wouldn't, and couldn't, make sense, i.e., there would be no consistency.

The people who argue subjectivity/context are those that recognize that their views don't hold up to critical scrutiny but nevertheless want to find some justification for their beliefs -- which, by definition, are irrational beliefs (since they are not based on evidence and reason).

People find all kinds of ways of justifying their irrational beliefs. Much "mental exercise" goes into that.

reneritchie
02-12-2008, 11:32 AM
Then why can't I unify relativistic Terence with Quantum Terence? :)

t_niehoff
02-12-2008, 12:28 PM
RR,

A good book I recommend is "Counterknowledge" by Damian Thomson.

Thomson’s definition of counterknowledge is “misinformation packaged as fact”. There seems to be much counterknowledge in WCK.

For a review of the book: http://newhumanist.org.uk/1696

sanjuro_ronin
02-12-2008, 12:47 PM
Truth -- reality -- isn't relative or subjective. If it was, the world/universe wouldn't, and couldn't, make sense, i.e., there would be no consistency.

The people who argue subjectivity/context are those that recognize that their views don't hold up to critical scrutiny but nevertheless want to find some justification for their beliefs -- which, by definition, are irrational beliefs (since they are not based on evidence and reason).

People find all kinds of ways of justifying their irrational beliefs. Much "mental exercise" goes into that.

Did you even ready my post?
What people see as "truth" and what is "truth" are not always the same, heck not to long ago the truth was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and so on.
The truth for some is that we never landed on the moon and Lee harvey killed Kennedy and no one else was involved.

Truth...

t_niehoff
02-12-2008, 02:28 PM
Did you even ready my post?
What people see as "truth" and what is "truth" are not always the same, heck not to long ago the truth was that the world was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe and so on.
The truth for some is that we never landed on the moon and Lee harvey killed Kennedy and no one else was involved.

Truth...

Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? There is truth and there is belief. You are mixing the two up.

Truth is truth, in that it reflects reality, the way things really are. Beliefs are something different. People can believe things that are true and they can believe things that are not. To say that both categories are "true", just individual "truths", is nonsense and redefines the term; that equates reality with nonreality. When people believed that the world was flat or that qi flowed through our bodies, they were wrong. That was (and is) not reality, it is not how the universe works, and it is not truth. They may believe it but that's not how things really are.

We know how things really are via evidence and sound reasoning, i.e., the foundational elements of critical thinking.

sanjuro_ronin
02-13-2008, 05:45 AM
Yes, I read your post. Did you read mine? There is truth and there is belief. You are mixing the two up.

Truth is truth, in that it reflects reality, the way things really are. Beliefs are something different. People can believe things that are true and they can believe things that are not. To say that both categories are "true", just individual "truths", is nonsense and redefines the term; that equates reality with nonreality. When people believed that the world was flat or that qi flowed through our bodies, they were wrong. That was (and is) not reality, it is not how the universe works, and it is not truth. They may believe it but that's not how things really are.

We know how things really are via evidence and sound reasoning, i.e., the foundational elements of critical thinking.

People tend to mix up belief and truth, it does indeed become subjective.
One man's truth about the odds of getting shot in South Africa are not another man's truth about being shot in Norway.

The is the issue with critical thinking, IF it can be done from an non-bias point of view, its great, problem is getting a non-bias point of view.

The reality of MY MA training is not the same as the reality fo yours or anyone eles on this board.

I am a big fan of critical thinking, when applied to specfics and not to generalizations.

LoneTiger108
02-13-2008, 05:53 AM
Thomson’s definition of counterknowledge is “misinformation packaged as fact”. There seems to be much counterknowledge in WCK.

Perhaps you should elaborate here t? If the counterknowledge you suggest is present in WCK you're suggesting misinformation. Much of it.

Fact is, only facts about WCK can be traced to Leung Jan according to most practitioners. Before then it's all just gravy. I was taught more to rely on what I see and who I meet. My Sifu existed and so did my Sigung and Ip Man. That's a fact. How they trained and taught is diffferent from other members of the same family. Fact. Publically, I was in the first western group to exhibit these methods. Fact. I'm now one of the only practitioners publically promoting Man Sifu in the World. Fact.

That's enough for me. No Misinformation. No irrellevent info imo. What about a factual look into your training past & present? Why do you contribute to any forums?


If you are after anything resembling truth or moving toward truth, then you need to "exercise" critical thinking skills.

I'd say considering we're talking about WCK here we all need to exercise physically and mentally. Healthy mind, healthy body if you know what I mean...