Latest WCI and WCK history [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

kung fu fighter

02-23-2014, 08:11 PM

Have to disagree about Yip man history. I have a great deal of respect for Robert but he is just repeating stories. Until someone deals with what Jui Wan told his students and his own son there is no credibility to the YKS being Leung Bik theory. Jui Wan knew YKS and his wing chun. Jui Wan was already a wing chun Sifu in his own right when he left Fatshan for Hong Kong. Jui Wan is the only credible source that knew and trained with Yip Man, Yui Choi, YKS and the other wing chun people in Fatshan.

Jui Wan said that in Fatshan Yip Mans wing chun was like everyone else's. However in Hong Kong Yip Man's wing chun was different and much better. So much so that Jui Wan studied under Yip Man. To this point in time every story teller I have heard talking about Yip Man learning advanced things from YKS and YKS really being Leung Bik has ignored the only person that was a wing chun sifu in both Fatshan and Hong Kong and knew Yip and his wing chun in both places. Yip may have trained with YKS but the wing chun that impressed Jui Wan was not YKS wing chun. Jui Wan was clear that whatever Yip was now doing with him was different that what was being done in Fatshan.

Leung Bik may have been made up. There is some evidence Yip spent time with Fung Wah in Hong Kong. Yip wing chun also contains signatures that did not come from YKS or Chan Wah. If you know about signatures in the forms you know how distinctive and subtle these signatures can be.

Yuen Kay San didn't openly teach his system in Fatshan, in fact he was quite secretive. I believe he only shared some stuff with Yip Man and Wong Jing, and Sum Nung was the only disciple to have learnt everything from him. so I am not sure how Jiu Wan would have known what YKS knew or not knew. My sifu is very good friends with Jiu wan's son whom used to live in Toronto before moving back to Hong Kong. He even gave me 10 out of 10 as a judge in a tornament for my wooden dummy form performance about 15 years ago. Looking back I wished I would have asked him more about this.

I don't know anything about Fung Wah. Who was he?
Fung Wah was one of Leung Jan's student. http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.FungWah

tc101

02-23-2014, 08:40 PM

Have to disagree about Yip man history. I have a great deal of respect for Robert but he is just repeating stories. Until someone deals with what Jui Wan told his students and his own son there is no credibility to the YKS being Leung Bik theory. Jui Wan knew YKS and his wing chun. Jui Wan was already a wing chun Sifu in his own right when he left Fatshan for Hong Kong. Jui Wan is the only credible source that knew and trained with Yip Man, Yui Choi, YKS and the other wing chun people in Fatshan.

Jui Wan said that in Fatshan Yip Mans wing chun was like everyone else's. However in Hong Kong Yip Man's wing chun was different and much better. So much so that Jui Wan studied under Yip Man. To this point in time every story teller I have heard talking about Yip Man learning advanced things from YKS and YKS really being Leung Bik has ignored the only person that was a wing chun sifu in both Fatshan and Hong Kong and knew Yip and his wing chun in both places. Yip may have trained with YKS but the wing chun that impressed Jui Wan was not YKS wing chun. Jui Wan was clear that whatever Yip was now doing with him was different that what was being done in Fatshan.

Leung Bik may have been made up. There is some evidence Yip spent time with Fung Wah in Hong Kong. Yip wing chun also contains signatures that did not come from YKS or Chan Wah. If you know about signatures in the forms you know how distinctive and subtle these signatures can be.

This is interesting. What I am wondering is that what Yip Man taught in HK changed a great deal over the tme he was in HK forms changed drills changed and so forth, and that his early guys like Leung Sheung did look much more like Foshan wing chun and what YKS was teaching and seemed to evolved from there so when exactly did JW begin training with YM? Was it early days or later days?

Hendrik

02-24-2014, 12:04 AM

KPM

02-24-2014, 05:00 AM

Yuen Kay San didn't openly teach his system in Fatshan, in fact he was quite secretive. I believe he only shared some stuff with Yip Man and Wong Jing, and Sum Nung was the only disciple to have learnt everything from him. so I am not sure how Jiu Wan would have known what YKS knew or not knew.

This is a good point. I have also read in multiple places that Sum Nung was the only disciple of YKS to learn his whole system.

Fung Wah was one of Leung Jan's student. http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.FungWah

Ok. Then this begs the question.....if Fung Wah was a student of Leung Jan, then his name and reputation in any lineage chart would have been just as good as Leung Bik. So why change the name or story at all? Fung Wah would have been the same generation as Chan Wah Shun or Leung Bik and so just as valid as Yip Man's teacher.

hunt1

02-24-2014, 12:23 PM

goofed up reply now below

hunt1

02-24-2014, 12:42 PM

[QUOTE=KPM;1262330]Yuen Kay San didn't openly teach his system in Fatshan, in fact he was quite secretive. I believe he only shared some stuff with Yip Man and Wong Jing, and Sum Nung was the only disciple to have learnt everything from him. so I am not sure how Jiu Wan would have known what YKS knew or not knew.

This is a good point. I have also read in multiple places that Sum Nung was the only disciple of YKS to learn his whole system.

Always surprises me how educated people will ignore facts for fantasy when it fits their own needs and ego. So many stories have propped up through the years about how much better teacher A was than Yip Man or how Yip learned all his advanced stuff from teacher B. These stories always seem to pop up after the eyewitnesses have died. For example Yui Kai,told many stories about watching his father Yui Choi train with ,including doing chi sao with, YKS and Yip Man a NG Chung So's school Jui Chow and Jui Wan also trained there. In Fatshan no one did wing chun in isolation. You can not get good at martial arts in isolation and the old masters knew that. Pan Nam also told similar stories about the wing chun masters spending time together .

Huge difference between Sifu level knowledge and ability and training with/sharing with others of your same level and being a student. You do not need to be my student to understand what I am doing if your knowledge and ability is of a similar or higher level.

Also what magical powers do you credit YKS with? You must believe he has some otherwise all this A really learned from B and not C stuff is nonsense. Humans are humans all have the same physical possibilities no more no less. Your system can be no better or worse than mine unless you limit yourself or I limit myself. The only difference is in body structure. you use the body the way it was designed or you don't. Leung Ting slant piling stuff is example of don't. Knees so close they touch is example of don't.

hunt1

02-24-2014, 12:58 PM

Fung Wah was one of Leung Jan's student. http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.FungWah

Ok. Then this begs the question.....if Fung Wah was a student of Leung Jan, then his name and reputation in any lineage chart would have been just as good as Leung Bik. So why change the name or story at all? Fung Wah would have been the same generation as Chan Wah Shun or Leung Bik and so just as valid as Yip Man's teacher.[/QUOTE]

Since we weren't there we can answer this question. Yip Man's legacy has been tarnished by jealousy and in fighting. Many have tried to cash in on his name or claimed their wing chun is better than Yips so they could cash in that way. None of these controversies occurred while Yip and Jui Wan were still alive funny how that is. Kwok Fu and Lan Gai had different stories than Sum Nung. Why do you credit SN with 100% truth and Yip's students false?

Yui Kai knew both YKS and YM why ignore his eyewitness accounts?

If you are going to claim biased stories as facts then you had better deal with all the facts and all the stories not just cherry pick those that serve your personal beliefs or goals.

hunt1

02-24-2014, 01:08 PM

Anyone know what these "signatures" are? Are they simply personalizations? thanks.

Traditionally a teacher would place a subtle signature in the forms he taught so others would be able to identify true students from out door or occasional students. Many of Yip Mans students placed signatures in their forms as well. A signature can be many things from a little hitch in the huen sau to a specific section of the knife or bui jee form.

For example I could say I learned from Ho Kam Ming but Joy would know I was full of it with in 10 seconds of my opening of a form.

hunt1

02-24-2014, 01:19 PM

This is interesting. What I am wondering is that what Yip Man taught in HK changed a great deal over the tme he was in HK forms changed drills changed and so forth, and that his early guys like Leung Sheung did look much more like Foshan wing chun and what YKS was teaching and seemed to evolved from there so when exactly did JW begin training with YM? Was it early days or later days?

This is a good question and one I can't answer I wasn't there. The first time I was told about Jui Wan and Yip Man was in 1983. I can't even tell you if all of my memories are correct. As I recall 2 wing chun sifu's from Hong Kong were visiting my teacher,an old friend and classmate of theirs. They were talking about Jui Wan's school and funny stories about some of Yip Man's visits to the school. I would only get the occasional translation. Neither Yip nor Jui Wan showed everything to regular students. So many may never have learned the differences. The differences seemed to have to do with higher level understandings and applications more than basic forms and drill's.

I was given the impression that Yip opened up more as time went on and showed more of the "Leung Bik" influence.

hunt1

02-24-2014, 03:43 PM

Aaahhhh, ok. Got it, thanks hunt1.
So from your example...you and Joy are from same lineage but different sifu's (?)

Exactly, and the way I perform would tell that to Joy no matter what I say to the contrary.

KPM

02-24-2014, 04:37 PM

Hey hunt1!

Always surprises me how educated people will ignore facts for fantasy when it fits their own needs and ego.

Excuse me, but I don't consider it fantasy and it has nothing to do with ego. I look at what seems to fit things together the best. So how about you lay out the facts as you see them for us and we can all consider them?

So many stories have propped up through the years about how much better teacher A was than Yip Man or how Yip learned all his advanced stuff from teacher B.

Its hard to know what to believe. Old Kung Fu guys have always been a bit secretive. Old Kung Fu guys have always had a tendency to make up stories and legends to give credibility to what they do. Then you have someone like Leung Ting writing "Roots & Branches" and presenting a lot of totally screwed up information. And now we're several generations removed from it all and if anything at all was recorded, it was in Chinese!

You do not need to be my student to understand what I am doing if your knowledge and ability is of a similar or higher level.

Good point!

Your system can be no better or worse than mine unless you limit yourself or I limit myself. The only difference is in body structure. you use the body the way it was designed or you don't.

Another good point!

I guess the whole Leung Bik fabrication has been such a source of interest and contention for so long because a certain someone used it to justify the existence of an entire Wing Chun method that was a significant departure from what Yip Man taught everyone else. ;)

Vajramusti

02-24-2014, 04:57 PM

Traditionally a teacher would place a subtle signature in the forms he taught so others would be able to identify true students from out door or occasional students. Many of Yip Mans students placed signatures in their forms as well. A signature can be many things from a little hitch in the huen sau to a specific section of the knife or bui jee form.

For example I could say I learned from Ho Kam Ming but Joy would know I was full of it with in 10 seconds of my opening of a form.
------------------------------------------------------

Good experienced people have their on little signatures in their forms. and in their chi sao.

Ho Kam Ming and Augustine Fong have their own unique features in their forms and they have reasons for what they do..

hunt1

02-24-2014, 05:39 PM

[QUOTE=KPM;1262409]Hey hunt1!

Always surprises me how educated people will ignore facts for fantasy when it fits their own needs and ego.

Excuse me, but I don't consider it fantasy and it has nothing to do with ego. I look at what seems to fit things together the best. So how about you lay out the facts as you see them for us and we can all consider them?

Was not referring to you just a general observation. Many highly educated people learn wing chun but when it comes to the history they act like ignorant dark age peasants believe myth and fantasy ignoring any facts that contradict what they have been taught by their teacher. They seem to forget Leung Jan ,Yip Man ,YKS, SN , etc were not and are not infallible gods but just men with the same faults as the rest of us including shoveling the BS when it suits.

KPM

02-24-2014, 06:54 PM

PalmStriker

02-24-2014, 08:55 PM

Do not see YKS/Yui Choi signature in Master Yip Hong Kong style Wing Chun but do see Gulo Leung/Fung style signature. http://www.apricotforesthall.com/AKWCleungjan.html

KPM

02-25-2014, 04:41 AM

Do not see YKS/Yui Choi signature in Master Yip Hong Kong style Wing Chun but do see Gulo Leung/Fung style signature. http://www.apricotforesthall.com/AKWCleungjan.html

I don't see that at all. Please elaborate.

PalmStriker

02-25-2014, 10:03 PM

What I am speaking of is not that easy to spot unless you know what to look for. Mostly the masters who are or were alive to have been filmed or photographed are not usually showing publicly what they were secreting. That said, sometimes they have. A couple of years back I was carrying on a conversation (PM) with Kevin where he was doubtful of the fact that there are techniques in full sight, some modified to hide their real use/meaning. I was taught some of this, non-Hong Kong stlyle WingChun technique in the early 80's. I pointed out in online video frames to Kevin what I was talking about. One technique was flashed by Sifu Sergio, I think he was just letting anyone viewing the vid that knew of the technique (he abbreviated it without showing it outright) that he was privy to some closed door Bil Jee training). It was that vid where Kevin agreed with what I was saying about the combat/evasion nature of the style. All the different TCMA styles of Wingchun carry their unique signatures. Gulo Village style is about as secretive a lineage as is out there. Plan to download this e-Book soon to browse some history. http://www.apricotforesthall.com/ebook.html

PalmStriker

02-25-2014, 10:21 PM

:) http://www.apricotforesthall.com/003_toc.html

KPM

02-26-2014, 04:40 AM

PalmStriker

02-26-2014, 09:57 PM

Information in this link spells out the relationship that Sifu Robert Chu is referring to, Master Yip's accelerated skillset could very well have been the "Leung Bik" effect that was experienced by his fellow students in training. Makes sense considering the status of Master YKS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuen_Kay_Shan

KPM

02-27-2014, 07:31 PM

Master Yip's accelerated skillset could very well have been the "Leung Bik" effect that was experienced by his fellow students in training. Makes sense considering the status of Master YKS.

Ok. Now I'm confused. First you said this:

Do not see YKS/Yui Choi signature in Master Yip Hong Kong style Wing Chun but do see Gulo Leung/Fung style signature.

....which sounds to me like you are saying that you don't think there is YKS influence in Yip Man's WCK but that there is Ku Lo WCK influence. When I asked you to explain what you are seeing as Ku Lo influence, you post the above comment where now it seems you agree that it may have been YKS's influence that affected Yip Man's Wing Chun. So which is it? Is YKS in or out in your opinion?

Hendrik

02-27-2014, 07:40 PM

Wait a little , a few weeks or months, DNA and history of Wck will be clear out with more and more information and facture evidence will surface in public domain.

Nothing comes from thin air, what exist can be traced.

hunt1

02-27-2014, 09:11 PM

Was not referring to you just a general observation.

Ok. No problem! But I'd still like to see you lay out the facts as you know them to help with some of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that is Wing Chun history! ;)

Keith, for me to examine WC History we have to understand some basic truths and facts about memory. Eyewitness accounts are actually very unreliable. Studies have shown that 2 people can witness the same thing and yet have completely different memories of the event. The other thing is that people remember things that never actually happened.

So taking this into account William Cheung could be totally truthful in his TWC stories yet his memory could be totally at odds with what he learned or was told by Yip Man. Sum Nung 's memory of what Yip learned from YKS could be equally false yet told with complete honesty. There fore we need to look at things that can be objectively determined and only give weight to stories told by long dead people when there is independent confirmation the more confirmation the better.

Start with Jui Wan's story of Yip's teaching being different in HK than in Fatshan and that Yip said it was due to Leung Bik. We know that what Yip taught his first students was like other Fatshan wing chun. We also know that some where in the 50's Yip's teaching changed. We can see that by looking at his students. This corresponds to Jiu Wan's statement Yip did the same wing chun as everyone else in fatshan but was doing something different when Jui Wan met up with Yip in HK around 1955.

Will move on to something else tomorrow.

PalmStriker

02-27-2014, 09:23 PM

Ok. Now I'm confused. First you said this:

Do not see YKS/Yui Choi signature in Master Yip Hong Kong style Wing Chun but do see Gulo Leung/Fung style signature.

....which sounds to me like you are saying that you don't think there is YKS influence in Yip Man's WCK but that there is Ku Lo WCK influence. When I asked you to explain what you are seeing as Ku Lo influence, you post the above comment where now it seems you agree that it may have been YKS's influence that affected Yip Man's Wing Chun. So which is it? Is YKS in or out in your opinion?
Thanks for noting the about face. I don't see any distinct signature in the YKS/Yui Choi and Yip Man (Sui Lim Tao) for instance, but if YKS had only taught "sticky hands" or enough of an advantage that Yip Man used to defeat all his training brothers, that in itself could be the mysterious skill set evolution that took place at that time, not necessarily in Hong Kong. I will be interested to see how this plays out.

hunt1

03-02-2014, 10:10 AM

This post is second part of my above post that started with problems of memory.

Another thing to I believe is never let anyone tell you what I see. No ignore the man behind the curtain stuff. People often are told to ignore what they see in favor of what they are told.

The YKS was Leung Bik theory has 2 parts. 1. YKS taught YM chi sao and 2. YKS taught YM his advanced techniques.

part 1. Sure maybe YKS taught YM the poon sau rolling we all know. It's possible . We know of 3 families that have done the rolling chi sao for decades. YKS,YM and Yui Choi. Older lines do different types of chi sao. We know YKS,YC and YM were friends that trained together. We have several different accounts of this and they are tied together as the 3 hero's of wing chun. They all trained at NG Chung So's school. We have different sources for this. So they were friends and training partners. If YKS came up with the rolling platform it is only natural that he would share it and develop it with his training partners. You could not design a 2 person training method alone you would need help and others to practice with. However this is different than teaching someone advanced techniques. Also we know Yip Man knew other forms of chi sao. Foe example 19 years ago Yip Ching showed me another chi sao platform his father taught him that would be recognized by anyone taught Kulo wing chun.

This is no different than someone teaching you the WT lat sao drills. you are learning a new training platform but not learning advanced techniques.

Advanced techniques next post

Vajramusti

03-02-2014, 01:03 PM

[QUOTE=hunt1;1262742]This post is second part of my above post that started with problems of memory.

part 1. Sure maybe YKS taught YM the poon sau rolling we all know. It's possible .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt it. I know that they worked out some together and at one point IM accepted YKS hospitality.
YKS's older brother moved to VietNam and played a big role there . No signs of IM type of rolling platform
in YKS's brother's wing chun.

You can see Sum Nun's son's wc- quite different in stance and turns from Ip Man.

You can see the last video interview of one of the first IM fatshan students (Gwok..?)) ( besides Lun Gai).
That student rolled with YKS-and did quite well. He also told him not to show YKS real jong work.

IM's synthesis in wing chun IMO is really one of a kind. He was selective about who he did chi sao with.
For instance reportedly he did not do chi sao
with Moy Yat- whose kwan instruction was with chop sticks over dim sum.

Sloppy wing chun history is mostly the case despite Hendrik's soliloquies and Sergio's roving camera.
Leaving history aside truth remains elusive about who learned what and for how long from Ip Man.

I also find it humorous that folks who try to get to the bottom of IM's wc motions do not accept his
simple statements that he learned a lot from Leung Bik . His listing Chan Wah Son as his sifu speaks to IM
sticking to the custom of his time that your first teacher is listed as your sifu- even though you may learn from others.

IM is gone and cannot correct other's misstatements. I remain careful about tossing gossip around and calling it history.

BPWT..

03-02-2014, 01:52 PM

YKS's older brother moved to VietNam and played a big role there . No signs of IM type of rolling platform
in YKS's brother's wing chun.

Do we know when YKS's brother moved to Vietnam? Was it after or before the time when YM and YKS were meeting?

Could it be that the rolling platform we're familiar with (in YM lineage Wing Chun) was developed by Yip Man and Yuen Kay San together?

hunt1

03-02-2014, 01:59 PM

Good points Joy and I tend to agree with you. I just am giving the YKS teaching YM chi sau rolling the benefit of the doubt as I don't think it is the major claim. To me it's the advanced techniques and you made good point's which go to the next part of my response to Keith.

Traditionally in wing chun advanced techniques were kept until and shown in the dummy form. You find this across all the different lines of wing chun. Also the key to wing chun is body usage and structure. If YM learned his advanced wing chun from YKS then we should see Fatshan and YKS body structure. However what is seen in YM students like HKM,WSL, TST,DL Yip Brothers, MY etc is a different body structure not the Fatshan/YKS structure. We only see some structure like this in his early students.. Again this coincides with Jui Wan's account and indicates that YM rejected the Fatshan/YKS structure for a structure and usage that Jui Wan said provided a better result. So YM body structure and usage does not support the story that YM learned his advanced wing chun from YKS.

The dummy is the last place we need to look . If you compare the dummy forms of Pan Nam, Chan Wah Sun's descendents, Lan Gai and Kwok Fu,Jui Wan, Fok Chui, Lo Kwai descendents and Yip Man HK dummy you will see a strong commonality in both sections ,structure, organization and purpose. The individual sections are not all identical but many are the same or very close across all the different lines. Of key importance is the Fok Chui dummy. Fok learned first from a Ng Chung So student then from Yui Choi. He does the Yui Choi bamboo dummy but his wooden dummy form that comes from NCS is very very similar to the YM form.

What this tells us is that all those that trace back to Leung Jan share a commonality of dummy forms and technique. Then if we move on we see the Yui Choi dummy. Yui Cho learned from YCW and NCS. Their dummy is a cross between the two teachers. It has a NCS structure but more YCW technique ,then we come to YCW dummy which is different yet again but not like the Leung Jan descended forms at all then different yet again is the YKS dummy. If YM learned his advanced wing chun from YKS we should clearly see it in the dummy . We do not see this at all other than very basic things. Bong sao tan punch etc. Just the common wing chun basic moves. In fact as Joy point out . Lan Gai and Kwok Fu said the YM told them not to show YKS their dummy . YKS wanting to learn YM dummy makes some sense since YKS was a wing chun scholar and I would think learning Leung Jan dummy techniques would be of great interest to one not from LJ line.

So for these objective observations and reasons I do not believe YM learned advanced wing chun from YKS. If he did we would see it in the body structure and dummy of YM and we don't.

I could get into different stories I have heard or was told but as I mentioned in my first post I don't believe human memory is that accurate.

deejaye72

03-02-2014, 06:46 PM

thats what i'm thinking also! whats the difference, i'm curious

KPM

03-02-2014, 07:11 PM

Thanks for summary Hunt1! So how does Fung Wah fit into all of this?

KPM

03-02-2014, 07:18 PM

I doubt it. I know that they worked out some together and at one point IM accepted YKS hospitality.
YKS's older brother moved to VietNam and played a big role there . No signs of IM type of rolling platform in YKS's brother's wing chun.

Someone posted here awhile back that was familiar with YCW's WCK and said that they DID make use of the same rolling platform.

You can see Sum Nun's son's wc- quite different in stance and turns from Ip Man.

You can see Chan Wah Shun's son's WCK and it is VERY different from Ip Man's!!

IM's synthesis in wing chun IMO is really one of a kind.

I think we all agree with that! Ip Man likely had many influences on his Wing Chun, including from the Weng Chun guys training at the Dai Duk Lan like Chu Chong Man and Tang Yik. Its how he put it all together in a cohesive curriculum that sets him apart. That's why I think its possible that his Leung Bik story was just a convenient way to explain changes in his method that came from several different teachers.

Sloppy wing chun history is mostly the case despite Hendrik's soliloquies and Sergio's roving camera.
Leaving history aside truth remains elusive about who learned what and for how long from Ip Man.

Very true!

I also find it humorous that folks who try to get to the bottom of IM's wc motions do not accept his
simple statements that he learned a lot from Leung Bik

The problem is that as far as I know, no one has ever found any historical evidence that Leung Bik existed. I think the one historical note was that he never learned Wing Chun, or may have been a cripple. But I don't have a reference for that. Maybe Navin remembers?

KPM

03-02-2014, 07:26 PM

What this tells us is that all those that trace back to Leung Jan share a commonality of dummy forms and technique.

So for these objective observations and reasons I do not believe YM learned advanced wing chun from YKS. If he did we would see it in the body structure and dummy of YM and we don't.

.

Good analysis. But consider this as well. The body structure that Leung Jan taught in Ku Lo village when he retired, at least as we see in today's Pin Sun WCK, is more similar to YKS Wing Chun than it is to Yip Man Wing Chun. So that needs to be factored in to your conclusions.

Minghequan

03-02-2014, 10:32 PM

This may be what Hendrik is referring to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCkc5UNZqk

LFJ

03-02-2014, 11:00 PM

This may be what Hendrik is referring to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCkc5UNZqk

Ha... He says we have "clear writings"... which he can't read, and he has help from "researchers" like Hendrik. And he does stupid sh!t like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6s1rbPFVg0

How can anyone take him seriously? :confused:

LFJ

03-02-2014, 11:06 PM

So for these objective observations and reasons I do not believe YM learned advanced wing chun from YKS. If he did we would see it in the body structure and dummy of YM and we don't.

I could get into different stories I have heard or was told but as I mentioned in my first post I don't believe human memory is that accurate.

I believe you're on the right track. Writings and testimonials are often agenda-filled bullsh!t and memories are often imprecise. Changes in movement patterns throughout a person's teaching career though is something objective that can be observed.

Hendrik

03-02-2014, 11:23 PM

Ha... He says we have "clear writings"... which he can't read, and he has help from "researchers" like Hendrik. And he does stupid sh!t like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6s1rbPFVg0

How can anyone take him seriously? :confused:

An open facts for the public,
I have shared and passed to sifu Sergio, and a dozen of sifu level WCners from various lineages around the world, On the writing and the exact instruction of the core of 1850 SLT.

They now know exactly the six core elements including basic Qi medirians handling in SNT such as open lung medirian handling which is one of the core key of SNT practice, the seven bows for WCK Jin development within SNT , and be able to perform the set in details at least to the entery level.

Thus, Sergio and these group of wcners Sifus have the writing, the set, the system, and the details of SNT 1850.

Minghequan

03-03-2014, 01:12 AM

wtxs

03-03-2014, 11:31 AM

Okay dude, if it's not "violating your laws" why don't you pass some of that stuff on to me for my own research?

Just lay it out in clear, concise terms that all can benefit from ...... waiting .................

Ron , Ron, Ron. If you have not figured it out by now, you gonna have to wait a looong looong time.

KPM

03-03-2014, 02:49 PM

Good analysis. But consider this as well. The body structure that Leung Jan taught in Ku Lo village when he retired, at least as we see in today's Pin Sun WCK, is more similar to YKS Wing Chun than it is to Yip Man Wing Chun. So that needs to be factored in to your conclusions.

Interestingly enough, in this interview that Sifu Sergio did with GM Fung Chun, he notes that Leung Jan had 5 sons, and that one of them moved to Vietnam where he taught Wing Chun. He says that Wong Wah Sam's first student left to Vietnam and stayed to train with him there. Wouldn't it be great to find surviving members of that lineage! I'm surprised Sifu Sergio hasn't tried to track them down!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEOooh_YKM&list=PLzYeq0CLmJWOU3TXOa75eMzZNAVeZuvBo&index=58

So who knows? Will the real Leung Bik please stand up!!!! ;)

Hendrik

03-03-2014, 03:07 PM

Interestingly enough, in this interview that Sifu Sergio did with GM Fung Chun, he notes that Leung Jan had 5 sons, and that one of them moved to Vietnam where he taught Wing Chun. He says that Wong Wah Sam's first student left to Vietnam and stayed to train with him there. Wouldn't it be great to find surviving members of that lineage! I'm surprised Sifu Sergio hasn't tried to track them down!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEOooh_YKM&list=PLzYeq0CLmJWOU3TXOa75eMzZNAVeZuvBo&index=58

So who knows? Will the real Leung Bik please stand up!!!! ;)

These things are not that complex IMHO.

There are three major known lineages passed down from 1850 era:

The law man Kung lineage which give birth to snake crane of the law family and yks .
The Wong wah bo lineage which give birth to Leung jan
The yik kam lineage which give birth to Cho family

Everyone of these three lineages has its signature and focus.

Ie: Yik kam has comprehensive internal information , law has the comprehensive woodern dummy set ...etc. No one has it all.

Assume Leung bik exist and good in wck, his art will be bound within the Wong wah Poh signature.
And will further bound by Leung jan art of either it is a harder art as chan wah or a side body art as kulo.

To be realitic,
So is Leung bik more close to practice Wck similar with Jim Rosalendo who study with Fung Chun or Chan wah direct grand student in china or Rene Ritchie who have seen Sung Num?

I would say most of us love to think some one has it all and love to safe face instead of telling what it is .

But by evidence, yik kam has the fullest internal elements but Law man Kung has more comprehensive woodern dummy training which yik kam lineage doesn't have.
Because it is an evolution and era dependent. Woodern dummy training evolve and grow after 1850. And those after 1850 doesn't practice internal six core elements and the seven bows as the core 1850. So that is reality.

If yik kam decendent shows a comprehensive woodern dummy set, you know that has to come from law lineage . No point to argue about it on I have it too. Because some one in the line is going to find out the facts in the present or future. So, it is better to be honest then makes things up and get caught.

Check out the siu nim tau set will tell one what is the likely
Nothing comes out of the blue , all is trace able, watch
Sergio part 2 next week .

GlennR

03-03-2014, 03:38 PM

Vajramusti

03-03-2014, 04:42 PM

How about his brother........... Leung Chun

http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.LeungChun

Thats my Lineage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Well!!
FWIW historiography is a major requirement in graduate work in historical research!!

But in wing chun "historians" are not in short supply.

GlennR

03-03-2014, 07:11 PM

---------------------------------------------------------------
Well!!
FWIW historiography is a major requirement in graduate work in historical research!!

But in wing chun "historians" are not in short supply.

Hey joy, only showing what I've been told, my instructor learnt of Juno Chung and the ancestors correlate with a couple of other practitioners overseas lineage as well

Vajramusti

03-03-2014, 07:16 PM

Hey joy, only showing what I've been told, my instructor learnt of Juno Chung and the ancestors correlate with a couple of other practitioners overseas lineage as well
---------

Hi Glenn-understood.
joy

Minghequan

03-03-2014, 08:55 PM

Wtxs wrote:

Ron , Ron, Ron. If you have not figured it out by now, you gonna have to wait a looong looong time.

Oh I've figured it out! Did you notice how he completely avoided answering my questions put to him!

Minghequan

03-03-2014, 08:56 PM

Hendrik,

Don't you get it? Don't you see???

The true origin of Wing Chun is not to be found in Snakes or Cranes!

It is to be found only in that most dangerous of all of God's creatures ..... Man!

wtxs

03-03-2014, 09:13 PM

Oh I've figured it out! Did you notice how he completely avoided answering my questions put to him!

He can't help it ... it's in his "DNA".:p

Minghequan

03-03-2014, 11:06 PM

All this posting by Hendrik seems to be aimed at one thing .... some sort of recognition and validation of his "theories", writings and youtube vids. It seems more about him getting his rocks off being "recognized" for his writings and statements than it does about actually furthering Wing Chun as an art!

If he gets people like Sergio to "recognize" his writings then it validates him as a person and I think Hendrik is one individual who seeks, no, needs this type of validation to feel worthy.

He feels this will place him in a special and honorable position within the Wing Chun community as someone "special" who discovered the "Real Wing Chun" (Whatever that is!) which is why he posts ad-nauseam here on this forum with his "discoveries" (in reality his views).

He feels this will show him as one of the few who knows real Wing Chun. That people who were critical of him will now be forced to acknowledge him ... again his need for validation.

He is so obsessed with 1850's Wing Chun, with Snakes & Cranes that he is missing out on the wonders and enjoyment of simply doing the art for himself.

Personally, I find his obsession very sad in what must be a lonely form of existence.

Hendrik

03-04-2014, 07:43 AM

Ron,

Please keep your opinion for yourself.

You don't know me and we have never met.

No one will help you if you keep playing the " if you don't give me what I want, I will do anything to you" behavior. Those are a Robber behavior. And not everyone will put up to such behavior .

This is a wing chun kuen forum under the threat of WCI and WCK history lets not drift away from the topic.

All this posting by Hendrik seems to be aimed at one thing .... some sort of recognition and validation of his "theories", writings and youtube vids. It seems more about him getting his rocks off being "recognized" for his writings and statements than it does about actually furthering Wing Chun as an art!

If he gets people like Sergio to "recognize" his writings then it validates him as a person and I think Hendrik is one individual who seeks, no, needs this type of validation to feel worthy.

He feels this will place him in a special and honorable position within the Wing Chun community as someone "special" who discovered the "Real Wing Chun" (Whatever that is!) which is why he posts ad-nauseam here on this forum with his "discoveries" (in reality his views).

He feels this will show him as one of the few who knows real Wing Chun. That people who were critical of him will now be forced to acknowledge him ... again his need for validation.

He is so obsessed with 1850's Wing Chun, with Snakes & Cranes that he is missing out on the wonders and enjoyment of simply doing the art for himself.

Personally, I find his obsession very sad in what must be a lonely form of existence.

kung fu fighter

03-04-2014, 09:50 AM

How about his brother........... Leung Chun http://www.wingchunpedia.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=WCP.LeungChun
Thats my Lineage. my instructor learnt of Juno Chung and the ancestors correlate with a couple of other practitioners overseas lineage as well

Hi Glen,
Were you ever able to locate the Jan's style wing chun sifu Chung Yuk Kwai from NYC or his students Jose Ramos?
also how does your linage differ from yip man's linage?

Here is what one of his student wrote "Sifu Tei was initially taught Wing Chun by one of Ip Man’s students (Sifu Chung Yuk Kwai) Lineage: Yip Man -> Chung Yuk Kwai -> Todd Shawn Tei " http://www.kungfuwingchun.com/sifu-todd-shawn-tei http://www.everythingwingchun.com/todd-shawn-tei-wing-chun-dvds-s/217.htm

KPM

03-04-2014, 01:10 PM

GlennR

03-04-2014, 02:25 PM

Hi Glen,
Were you ever able to locate the Jan's style wing chun sifu Chung Yuk Kwai from NYC or his students Jose Ramos?
also how does your linage differ from yip man's linage?

Here is what one of his student wrote "Sifu Tei was initially taught Wing Chun by one of Ip Man’s students (Sifu Chung Yuk Kwai) Lineage: Yip Man -> Chung Yuk Kwai -> Todd Shawn Tei " http://www.kungfuwingchun.com/sifu-todd-shawn-tei http://www.everythingwingchun.com/todd-shawn-tei-wing-chun-dvds-s/217.htm

Hey KFF
No, i never got a response from Chung Kwai or indeed Todd Shawn Tei ,and had no luck in locating Jose Ramos.
And i wasmt through lack of trying.

FWIW, Junno Chung and Chung Yuk Kwai may claim the same lineage (Leung Chung via the mysterious Chung Mei.... he's the link) but they ALSO claim to have learnt of Yip Man at one stage.
Hers an old photo of Junno with one of his original members;

http://www.ewingchun.com/sifus/chris-spanos

So they both claim an odd Lineage, and both also claim tutelage from Yip Man.......... youd ignore it all if the family tree didnt line up.

Anyway, who knows, maybe they are long separated brothers!

And how did it differ? Very tight stance (knees a fist distance apart) adhered to the elbow on the centreline and had a somewhat similar feel to the WSL ballistic energy Kev (used to) talk about.
I maybe bias, but it was a very good style

kung fu fighter

03-04-2014, 02:57 PM

Hey KFF
No, i never got a response from Chung Kwai or indeed Todd Shawn Tei ,and had no luck in locating Jose Ramos.
And i wasmt through lack of trying.

FWIW, Junno Chung and Chung Yuk Kwai may claim the same lineage (Leung Chung via the mysterious Chung Mei.... he's the link) but they ALSO claim to have learnt of Yip Man at one stage.
Hers an old photo of Junno with one of his original members;

http://www.ewingchun.com/sifus/chris-spanos

So they both claim an odd Lineage, and both also claim tutelage from Yip Man.......... youd ignore it all if the family tree didnt line up.

Anyway, who knows, maybe they are long separated brothers!

And how did it differ? Very tight stance (knees a fist distance apart) adhered to the elbow on the centreline and had a somewhat similar feel to the WSL ballistic energy Kev (used to) talk about.
I maybe bias, but it was a very good style

Thanks for the reply Glen!
I wonder if this system's body structure is close to Kulo Pin sun wing chun.

KPM

03-04-2014, 07:17 PM

Photo of Leung Bik:

http://kwansao.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/picture-of-leung-bik/

Do we believe it??????

Minghequan

03-04-2014, 07:20 PM

Please keep your opinion for yourself.

Why? Your the one who has posted your opinions to the point of nausea here on this very forum yet you want to deny anyone else having an opinion? Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can post your opinions then so can I and many others. It's called Free Speech!

You don't know me and we have never met.

True. We have never met and I am doubtless we ever will due to your rather secretive attitude when it comes to explaining your published opinions here within this forum.

No one will help you if you keep playing the " if you don't give me what I want, I will do anything to you" behavior. Those are a Robber behavior. And not everyone will put up to such behavior

Sorry but your way off on left field with this one? "If you don't give me what I want, I will do anything to you"??? Sorry but I don't understand your meaning here? All I am asking of you is to publish and share the full information (Sources, validation of same) etc of the very things YOU HAVE STATED ON THESE THREADS! I and many others just want to get to the facts (Not your "opinions" of which you apparently have many) behind what you have posted in these forums. "Robber Behavior??? WTF Hendrik? I'm not trying to "rob" you or anyone else! I just want you to share what you say you have as the facts behind what you write here! For F#@k Sake Man, Grow Up!

"And not everyone will put up to such behavior" There you go AGAIN ... offering your "opinion!" Hendrik, you don't speak for others on this forum most of whom you probably have never met or know anything about (Sound familiar Hendrik? :rolleyes:) so keep your opinions on others to yourself!

Oh and Hendrik, stop avoiding the real issues here!!!

wtxs

03-05-2014, 12:56 PM

Sounds like sour grapes because he chooses not to share his info with you at the moment. ;) Be patient. You should know that this is a typical chinese mindset.

Hooold on a minute there K, I knooow you're not meaning to stereo type, but you hurt my feeling by lumping me and other sane Chinese in there with Hendrik! :p

GlennR

03-05-2014, 01:59 PM

Thanks for the reply Glen!
I wonder if this system's body structure is close to Kulo Pin sun wing chun.

Good Question KFF
Im actually friends with John of Kulo (imperialtaichi) here in Australia and i went to one of his seminars, the body structure is somewhat different.

Ive also, in the early days of here and the wingchunkuen mailing list, asked folks like Jim Roselando and so on what their take is on my lineage/stance ,comparatively speaking, and, to be honest, it didn't seem to elicit much interest.

And i guess thats why all these "historians" like Hendrik get under my skin. Someone comes up with a "lost" lineage, the same family tree pops up in a couple of places across the world, yet they show no interest?
It doesnt personally bother me, but surely if someone is looking for the true DNA or whatever hes on about, wouldnt you exhaust all avenues??

To this day, Hendrik has never asked me one question............ hes already made his mind up

KPM

03-05-2014, 06:35 PM

Hooold on a minute there K, I knooow you're not meaning to stereo type, but you hurt my feeling by lumping me and other sane Chinese in there with Hendrik! :p

My apologies! I should have said "traditional Chinese martial art mindset"! :)

KPM

03-05-2014, 06:39 PM

Im actually friends with John of Kulo (imperialtaichi) here in Australia and i went to one of his seminars, the body structure is somewhat different.

No offense to Dr. John, but I've seen his youtube videos and his body structure and mechanics are nothing like the Pin Sun I learned. Just compare what he does to videos of Jim Roselando and some of the footage he shot in Ku Lo village.

Ive also, in the early days of here and the wingchunkuen mailing list, asked folks like Jim Roselando and so on what their take is on my lineage/stance ,comparatively speaking, and, to be honest, it didn't seem to elicit much interest.

I'm interested! I'd be happy to compare notes.

And i guess thats why all these "historians" like Hendrik get under my skin. Someone comes up with a "lost" lineage, the same family tree pops up in a couple of places across the world, yet they show no interest?

Good point! It would certainly be another data point in the WCK "DNA."

\

GlennR

03-05-2014, 07:50 PM

No offense to Dr. John, but I've seen his youtube videos and his body structure and mechanics are nothing like the Pin Sun I learned. Just compare what he does to videos of Jim Roselando and some of the footage he shot in Ku Lo village.

Yep, it was a bit foreign to me but it works for John

I'm interested! I'd be happy to compare notes.

Nice to hear Keith, how much Kulo have you done?

Good point! It would certainly be another data point in the WCK "DNA."

True, but he has already come to his own conclusion, why would he bother looking at ALL the information out there

Minghequan

03-05-2014, 10:30 PM

Sounds like sour grapes because he chooses not to share his info with you at the moment. Be patient. You should know that this is a typical chinese mindset.

Sour Grapes ........ No. I don't care if he chooses to share or not. It does however kinda get me p@$$ed when he makes a statement yet won't elaborate of follow up upon same when properly asked. Seems to be his modus operandi!

Hendrik .... typical Chinese??? Hmmm well ...................... :)

LFJ

03-05-2014, 10:50 PM

surely if someone is looking for the true DNA or whatever hes on about, wouldnt you exhaust all avenues??

To this day, Hendrik has never asked me one question............ hes already made his mind up

Exactly. The only person who takes Hendrik seriously is Sergio, who himself cannot be taken seriously, and it's only because they both share the same wishful thinking and confirmation bias. They don't know how to do real research. While Sergio does go out and actually train with people (I don't believe Hendrik has ever hit a wallbag), he's still an obvious hoodwinker with all the "internal power" bs he tries to pass off.

Minghequan

03-05-2014, 11:49 PM

Exactly. The only person who takes Hendrik seriously is Sergio, who himself cannot be taken seriously, and it's only because they both share the same wishful thinking and confirmation bias. They don't know how to do real research. While Sergio does go out and actually train with people (I don't believe Hendrik has ever hit a wallbag), he's still an obvious hoodwinker with all the "internal power" bs he tries to pass off.

Don't forget it's all part of Hendrik's "Typical Chinese Mindset" (WTF?) :p

Hendrik cites a new Youtube Vid by Sergio as "proof" that his "theories ... more like opinions are right. Last time I looked Youtube was hardly the bastion of real research!

Yes to his credit Sergio indeed does appear to train and perhaps that's something Hendrik should consider before expounding upon anymore theories/opinions?

LFJ

03-06-2014, 01:10 AM

Hendrik cites a new Youtube Vid by Sergio as "proof" that his "theories ... more like opinions are right.

It's hardly a corroboration when it's just Sergio regurgitating opinions he got from Hendrik anyway! :p

Minghequan

03-06-2014, 01:32 AM

Yes, so true. And where oh where is the "Hard Evidence?"

KPM

03-06-2014, 04:43 AM

Don't forget it's all part of Hendrik's "Typical Chinese Mindset" (WTF?) :p

So then maybe you don't know what I'm talking about? I thought you had been around traditional CMA for awhile. Oh well. It won't make any difference to continue to beat Hendrik up over this. Believe me! I've been there! ;)

tc101

03-06-2014, 04:46 AM

Minghequan

03-06-2014, 03:17 PM

So then maybe you don't know what I'm talking about? I thought you had been around traditional CMA for awhile. Oh well. It won't make any difference to continue to beat Hendrik up over this. Believe me! I've been there!

I know what your talking about. I just don't apply it to Hendrik as I don't view him as "Traditional Chinese"

KPM

03-06-2014, 07:27 PM

No offense to KPM but does not imperialtaichi practice the 22 point system of Ku Lo which is different from the Pin Sun system?

This is just a thought but maybe his body structure mechanics is different since he has moved beyond beginner level and has personalized those things.

KL22 is a "spin off" from Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun that was created by Fung Lim. Fung Lim had an extensive background in other things before learning KLPSWCK. But he sent his son, Fung Sang, back to Ku Lo village to study rather than pass on to him the KL22 point system that he had created.

But you be the judge. Here is Dr. John Fung doing his thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkVTBGyCPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chHFCQpybZY

He may very well have "personalized" things quite a bit, because here is KL 22 from China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPlKEkh6SGE

Here is Fung Keung, Fung Chun's son, doing some Ku Lo Pin Sun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYhJn9OfeBs

Here is Jim Roselando showing a basic Ku Lo Pin Sun drill:

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

Glenn, let me characterize the KLPSWCK body mechanic a bit from my experience:
1. Medium width stance in the YGKYM with the heels no wider than the shoulders.
2. The pivot is on the K1 point of the foot, at the middle just behind the ball of the foot.
3. The weight is kept 50/50 throughout the pivot.
4. The stance is very upright, not hunched over or "hollow chest" like in Southern Mantis.
5. The waist or "kwa" is used for power generation and not "locked in" like in many WCK lineages. The "four directions" of typical southern CMAs are used: Swallow, Spit, Sink, Rise.
6. The waist action leads the pivot, not the knees.
7. Techniques like Tun Sao, Lim Sao, and the Got or "cutting" version of Bong and Gan are used much more than in most Yip Man lineages. In fact, from my experience Yip Man WCK hardly uses them at all.

So I'd be interested in hearing how this compares to your system Glenn. Overall, I think KLPSWCK has more in common with Yuen Kay Shan WCK than it does with Yip Man WCK. Which IMHO, kind of puts a wrench in some of the history theorizing that has been done here.

GlennR

03-06-2014, 10:54 PM

Glenn, let me characterize the KLPSWCK body mechanic a bit from my experience:
1. Medium width stance in the YGKYM with the heels no wider than the shoulders.
2. The pivot is on the K1 point of the foot, at the middle just behind the ball of the foot.
3. The weight is kept 50/50 throughout the pivot.
4. The stance is very upright, not hunched over or "hollow chest" like in Southern Mantis.
5. The waist or "kwa" is used for power generation and not "locked in" like in many WCK lineages. The "four directions" of typical southern CMAs are used: Swallow, Spit, Sink, Rise.
6. The waist action leads the pivot, not the knees.
7. Techniques like Tun Sao, Lim Sao, and the Got or "cutting" version of Bong and Gan are used much more than in most Yip Man lineages. In fact, from my experience Yip Man WCK hardly uses them at all.

So I'd be interested in hearing how this compares to your system Glenn. Overall, I think KLPSWCK has more in common with Yuen Kay Shan WCK than it does with Yip Man WCK. Which IMHO, kind of puts a wrench in some of the history theorizing that has been done here.

Hi Keith
Ok, as follows
1. Yep, the same but as i said, fist distance between knees
2. Same
3. No, weight is transferred evenly during the turn onto the back leg..... about 70/30
4. Upright, yes.
5. Same again though the four direction term isnt used
6. Spot on
7. I take it you mean cutting the arm away as opposed to sticking to it? A more ballistic motion as Kev would have put it

Nice chat Keith by the way

tc101

03-07-2014, 04:36 AM

KL22 is a "spin off" from Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun that was created by Fung Lim. Fung Lim had an extensive background in other things before learning KLPSWCK. But he sent his son, Fung Sang, back to Ku Lo village to study rather than pass on to him the KL22 point system that he had created.

But you be the judge. Here is Dr. John Fung doing his thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPkVTBGyCPM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chHFCQpybZY

He may very well have "personalized" things quite a bit, because here is KL 22 from China:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPlKEkh6SGE

Here is Fung Keung, Fung Chun's son, doing some Ku Lo Pin Sun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYhJn9OfeBs

Here is Jim Roselando showing a basic Ku Lo Pin Sun drill:

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

Glenn, let me characterize the KLPSWCK body mechanic a bit from my experience:
1. Medium width stance in the YGKYM with the heels no wider than the shoulders.
2. The pivot is on the K1 point of the foot, at the middle just behind the ball of the foot.
3. The weight is kept 50/50 throughout the pivot.
4. The stance is very upright, not hunched over or "hollow chest" like in Southern Mantis.
5. The waist or "kwa" is used for power generation and not "locked in" like in many WCK lineages. The "four directions" of typical southern CMAs are used: Swallow, Spit, Sink, Rise.
6. The waist action leads the pivot, not the knees.
7. Techniques like Tun Sao, Lim Sao, and the Got or "cutting" version of Bong and Gan are used much more than in most Yip Man lineages. In fact, from my experience Yip Man WCK hardly uses them at all.

So I'd be interested in hearing how this compares to your system Glenn. Overall, I think KLPSWCK has more in common with Yuen Kay Shan WCK than it does with Yip Man WCK. Which IMHO, kind of puts a wrench in some of the history theorizing that has been done here.

Ok I see what you mean by those are common traits of Pin Sun and Fung does things differently. You probably will not agree with me but here is how I look at it. Those mechanics and common traits are beginner level. Maybe as you say they are common to how beginners are taught to move in Pin Sun. I learned that in wing chun like in boxing you learn beginner level mechanics and structure which is intended to be modified and personalized. It is a starting point to begin to find your own way. Sometimes when people teach they do not teach as they learned things but they are still teaching what they learned. That is what I meant by my comment.

KPM

03-07-2014, 05:50 AM

7. I take it you mean cutting the arm away as opposed to sticking to it? A more ballistic motion as Kev would have put it

Not exactly. A "Got Bong" allows the forearm to fold inward more than the "standard" Bong so that it is almost like an elbow strike. So it is a little more ballistic, but that's not the primary intent. One intent is to roll over the opponent's forearm and trap it momentarily to set up a follow on strike. This strike is often a "Biu Choi", something I have never seen in Yip Man lineages. A Biu Choi is a whipping back-knuckle strike on the horizontal plane.

A "Got Gan" is a Gan Sao that retracts with a bent wrist rather than going outward. The intent is to "suck" someone into range for a strike as you deflect their strike. If you know what a Lim Sao is....its essentially an outward Lim Sao on the lower line. Again, not something I've seen in Yip Man lineages.

A "Tun Sao" is essentially a Tan Sao that retracts rather than going forward. "Tun" means swallow, so again the intent here is to "suck" someone in rather than push them away. Of course both the Got Gan and the Tun are often used with a pivot so that you are sending the opponent past you as you angle or "flank" them. But of course, according to tc101, this would never happen in real fighting. I have seen something like this in Yip Man WCK, but it doesn't seem to be used very often.

KPM

03-07-2014, 05:55 AM

You probably will not agree with me but here is how I look at it. Those mechanics and common traits are beginner level. Maybe as you say they are common to how beginners are taught to move in Pin Sun. I learned that in wing chun like in boxing you learn beginner level mechanics and structure which is intended to be modified and personalized. It is a starting point to begin to find your own way. Sometimes when people teach they do not teach as they learned things but they are still teaching what they learned. That is what I meant by my comment.

You're right. I don't agree with you. Martial arts systems have specific body mechanics and structural characteristics that they use to generate power while maintaining mobility. Its not just for "beginners." Its the core of what they do. You can change hand forms all you want, but when you start changing the core biomechanics then you are doing something else and no longer doing what was intended. You may "tweak" things a bit to fit your own body type, but if you start hunching over and swinging your shoulders when doing Pin Sun, for example, then you are no longer doing Pin Sun WCK. The core mechanics are what makes the various styles or lineages distinct, not necessarily what techniques they use.

hunt1

03-08-2014, 12:22 PM

Overall, I think KLPSWCK has more in common with Yuen Kay Shan WCK than it does with Yip Man WCK. Which IMHO, kind of puts a wrench in some of the history theorizing that has been done here.[/QUOTE]

KPM you think this structure is the same

http://youtu.be/V5cqRp-YtuM

as this? Form starts about 55 seconds in.

http://youtu.be/HfCsuKc0BHs

KPM

03-08-2014, 01:45 PM

Hey hunt1!

KPM you think this structure is the same as this? Form starts about 55 seconds in.

Remember, I said "similar" not "same"! ;) No, they are not the same. But keep in mind in that first clip Fung Chun was putting on a show for Leung Ting. He was doing a "pseudo-ish" SLT form that was some of the San Sik strung together with a few extra things. The part with the two guys doing Chi Sao in a low squat with their butts sticking out....that baffles me! Certainly not part of the KLPSWCK that I learned! The best way to explain it is to consider that they are putting on a show for Leung Ting, who already had a bit of a reputation at this point that preceded him. So what they were showing was not necessarily the "real deal." After all, just look at how much inaccurate information ended up in LT's "Roots and Branches" book.

KLPS puts more "body" into things right from the start, which you can see in that clip, while YKSWCK like YMWCK waits until closer to Chum Kiu level. But here are the similar mechanics I see in KLPS and YKSWC:
1. Both pivot near the ball of the foot instead of on the heels. But I do have to admit that early on Yip Man seems to have taught pivoting on the ball of the foot as well....as seen in Leung Sheung/Leung Ting lineages.
2. Both make use of a larger pivot than typically found in YMWCK. They sometimes use a "Pin Sun Da" which is an extended punch with the arm and both shoulders all in one line. But here I have to admit that this is found in the 12 preliminary San Sik that Sum Nun added to the system from his training with Cheung Bo and may have not been something that YKS himself taught.
3. Both have more of a "snakey" dynamic than YMWCK in many of the techniques.
4. Both use Lim Sao more prominently that most YMWCK.

I know less of YKSWCK than I do of KLPSWCK. But other people more knowledgeable than me have said the same thing. My overall impression is that KLPSWCK body structure and dynamics are not largely different from YKSWCK body structure and dynamics and really not that different than what Yip Man taught early on to Leung Sheung. So if Leung Bik was truly Yip Man's "secret source", then its hard to see what would have been so different. It would certainly help to know exactly WHAT Jiu Wan thought was so changed in Yip Man's Wing Chun between his Fatshan version and his Hong Kong version. To me, this all just reinforces the idea that "Leung Bik" was just a convenient way to lump multiple influences on Yip Man's Wing Chun together, along with his own changes and innovations. As Joy said, Yip Man's Wing Chun was truly his own. Yip Man started a new lineage, just like Leung Jan did with what he taught Wong Wah Sam after he retired to Ku Lo village.

But I'd still like to hear more about how you think Fung Wah fits into all of this.

GlennR

03-08-2014, 03:23 PM

Not exactly. A "Got Bong" allows the forearm to fold inward more than the "standard" Bong so that it is almost like an elbow strike. So it is a little more ballistic, but that's not the primary intent. One intent is to roll over the opponent's forearm and trap it momentarily to set up a follow on strike. This strike is often a "Biu Choi", something I have never seen in Yip Man lineages. A Biu Choi is a whipping back-knuckle strike on the horizontal plane.

Yep,same again..... one of my favourite moves actually

A "Got Gan" is a Gan Sao that retracts with a bent wrist rather than going outward. The intent is to "suck" someone into range for a strike as you deflect their strike. If you know what a Lim Sao is....its essentially an outward Lim Sao on the lower line. Again, not something I've seen in Yip Man lineages.

Not sure what you mean here, have a video togive me an idea?

A "Tun Sao" is essentially a Tan Sao that retracts rather than going forward. "Tun" means swallow, so again the intent here is to "suck" someone in rather than push them away. Of course both the Got Gan and the Tun are often used with a pivot so that you are sending the opponent past you as you angle or "flank" them. But of course, according to tc101, this would never happen in real fighting. I have seen something like this in Yip Man WCK, but it doesn't seem to be used very often.

Yep again. We called that a "negative tan", as opposed to the standard, which we would call positive.

Thing about our lineage here in Oz was that when i started Junno had retired, in fact i never met him, and a lot of terms were transferred into english, as per the tan thing.

I notice in another post you reference the snake aspect, i see a lo tof that in our line

PalmStriker

03-09-2014, 01:21 PM

Conversation Reference Thread: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?53075-The-Lineage-of-Yip-Man/page4

GlennR

03-09-2014, 02:18 PM

Conversation Reference Thread: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?53075-The-Lineage-of-Yip-Man/page4

Very good thread that......... well done PS

KPM

03-09-2014, 05:02 PM

Conversation Reference Thread: http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?53075-The-Lineage-of-Yip-Man/page4

Yes! Thanks for that!

Josexx

03-11-2014, 10:38 PM

Exactly. The only person who takes Hendrik seriously is Sergio, who himself cannot be taken seriously, and it's only because they both share the same wishful thinking and confirmation bias. They don't know how to do real research.
You hit the nail on the head, I wouldn't put much "faith" in Sergio's so called research. He has a his-story of rewriting Wing/Weng/Eng Chun/Tsun history. the last one was the fake hkb 5 flags wc family tree.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wk3WPHKAMyg

tc101

03-12-2014, 04:19 AM

You hit the nail on the head, I wouldn't put much "faith" in Sergio's so called research. He has a his-story of rewriting Wing/Weng/Eng Chun/Tsun history. the last one was the fake hkb 5 flags wc family tree.

All this interest in the history of wing chun is very confusing to me. It appears founded on the idea that the past somehow holds secrets lost that will turbo charge your wing chun. I find that idea laughable and cannot believe any sensible person would consider that.

What is even more laughable are claims that this or that will make your wing chun better. My question is better at what? Funny that it is always some vague thing like handling momentum or what have you. When people make claims of better then they need to step up and prove it. I am sure everyone of us would like to improve but everyone of us does not want to waste our time or be misled. It is such an easy thing if you have some superior way to show it. When some one making a superior claim won't show it that is the best evidence their claim is empty.

Arts and training method evolve over time to get better not worse. Leung Jan and Yip Man and YKS and the other great masters did not modify their arts and training to make things worse but to make things better, simpler, more effective. It is the same with boxing and other martial arts. I have asked Hendrik to explain why all these great masters were able to attain their skill and make wing chun's reputation without his secrets. He cannot answer. He also cannot answer why those with his secrets are not reputed as great wing chun fighters.

BPWT..

03-12-2014, 05:05 AM

Arts and training method evolve over time to get better not worse.

Generally, I agree. But sometimes information can be lost. If you look at sword fighting in Europe over the ages, much of the knowledge has been lost or obscured and today people are slowly trying to piece things together again. While I don't agree with everything Hendrik says, there is always the possibility that certain training methods, for example, were not passed down (for whatever reason).

That said, his talk of "revealing" and, in his latest SNT videos, his talk of "restoring" are off-base, IMO. With the exception of "growing and circulating Chi", pretty much everything he talks about can be found in most YM WC/VT/WT.

... I have asked Hendrik to explain why all these great masters were able to attain their skill and make wing chun's reputation without his secrets. He cannot answer. He also cannot answer why those with his secrets are not reputed as great wing chun fighters.

Good point. ;)

tc101

03-12-2014, 06:08 AM

Generally, I agree. But sometimes information can be lost. If you look at sword fighting in Europe over the ages, much of the knowledge has been lost or obscured and today people are slowly trying to piece things together again. While I don't agree with everything Hendrik says, there is always the possibility that certain training methods, for example, were not passed down (for whatever reason).

That said, his talk of "revealing" and, in his latest SNT videos, his talk of "restoring" are off-base, IMO. With the exception of "growing and circulating Chi", pretty much everything he talks about can be found in most YM WC/VT/WT.

Good point. ;)

I have a training partner that is ex national level fencer. He explained to me that much of the lost knowledge in sword fighting is the result of technology changes in sword design and construction which changes what you can do with the sword and with advancements in tactics so much of what was lost was lost on purpose. That is evolution you discard things when you find better. Yes certain training methods may not have been passed down. But so what? When you consider what and how training works then you see that if a fighter has a weakness he or his trainer will find a way to train to fix it. There is never just one unique method that only works. It is like fitness so what if a some exercise some one used is lost? You can always find another way to train to develop.

I mean people seem to be drawn to the past. In all things the old days were better. The fighters were better after all they fought daily life and death battles. They were smarter. They had secrets we don't know about. They walked them miles through snow and beast infested woods to just go to school. They were lions and we are kittens. Sorry I was channeling bawang.

sanjuro_ronin

03-12-2014, 06:41 AM

It is important to find a balance between past and present.
We learn from the past, live in the present and prepare for the future.
We do not, MUST NOT, live in the past.

At the same time we must NOT disregard to core of the system and exercise is a prime example.
There are many ways to build strength ( as an example) and we have made many advances in training protocols and such BUT you still have some "old school" staples that can't be beat: Squat, Deadlift, bench press and overhead press.
The point is that while we may use the past, we must never lose sight if there is a better/more effective way to do something now AND at the same time, realize that new isn't always better than old.

BPWT..

03-12-2014, 06:46 AM

I was thinking mostly of the guys (and girls) who do research into the Lichtenauer-based fencing system. People like these: http://gesellschaft-lichtenawers.eu/tsc/

They look at original manuscripts (note: verified documents, Hendrik) for long sword fencing and try to interpret the sources (mostly material from 1450 - 1480). I'm not really into this, by the by, but its kinda interesting. :)

Edit: These guys getting their funk on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc&feature=player_embedded#at=13

Hendrik

03-12-2014, 11:26 AM

JPinAZ

03-12-2014, 11:51 AM

All this interest in the history of wing chun is very confusing to me. It appears founded on the idea that the past somehow holds secrets lost that will turbo charge your wing chun. I find that idea laughable and cannot believe any sensible person would consider that.

I have asked Hendrik to explain why all these great masters were able to attain their skill and make wing chun's reputation without his secrets. He cannot answer. He also cannot answer why those with his secrets are not reputed as great wing chun fighters.

He avoids the real questions about results because he doesn't have an answer. Trying to get answers from Hendrik to any real questions is similar to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MK9jJzbBT8

tc101

03-15-2014, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by tc101
... I have asked Hendrik to explain why all these great masters were able to attain their skill and make wing chun's reputation without his secrets. He cannot answer. He also cannot answer why those with his secrets are not reputed as great wing chun fighters.---

1. I have no secret as you made up.

2. I choose to not answering so not hurt your feeling and bust your fantasy by factures evidence , instead cannot answer.

So you think these past masters really did not have high level of fighting skills? How about meeting with some local wing chun guys and having a sparring session that will be taped and put on YouTube? We can set it up on this forum. Why not show the world in one short tape what all your special knowledge and understanding will amount to? Isn't that better than producing hours and hours of lectures? If you are really concerned with evidence this is the best evidence. Or do you think that if people really see your performance they will know you are a fraud?

Hendrik

03-15-2014, 10:24 AM

So you think these past masters really did not have high level of fighting skills? How about meeting with some local wing chun guys and having a sparring session that will be taped and put on YouTube? We can set it up on this forum. Why not show the world in one short tape what all your special knowledge and understanding will amount to? Isn't that better than producing hours and hours of lectures? If you are really concerned with evidence this is the best evidence. Or do you think that if people really see your performance they will know you are a fraud?

What I think doesn't matter.
Who am I or what is my ability doesn't matter.

What is the Wck facts out there which could be track for past 100 years. Is the key .
That track record is the facts. If you choose to be blind. That is your personal issue .

For those like to know the facts, just doing research and dig into the facts track record.

Got nothing to do with me. And in fact, I encourage everyone to not trust me and only take what is a facture evidence from the track record.

Until you learn to distinguish the different between, think, believe , and facts. How can you understand history ?

Whatever I can do or what ever I cannot do, got zero to do with the facts in the track record. For no one can go back in time to change history , and no one represent history. Not me for sure.

tc101

03-15-2014, 11:09 AM

What I think doesn't matter.
Who am I or what is my ability doesn't matter.

This is one of your regular tricks to try deflect criticism. Hendrik is just the messenger of truth.

What is the Wck facts out there which could be track for past 100 years. Is the key .
That track record is the facts. If you choose to be blind. That is your personal issue .

For those like to know the facts, just doing research and dig into the facts track record.

Got nothing to do with me. And in fact, I encourage everyone to not trust me and only take what is a facture evidence from the track record.

Until you learn to distinguish the different between, think, believe , and facts. How can you understand history ?

I do not care about tracking wing chun back 100 years. I do not care how they may and I stress may because I don't trust you at all have done things a 100 years ago. I don't care how they boxed or wrestled or whatever else from 100 years ago. None of those things get better as you go back in time they get worse. This is why it is called growth or evolution. Martial arts THAT ARE USED get better over time. Martial arts THAT ARE NOT USED get worse over time. This is true on a personal level and on a system level.

You are trying to sell that your way is the best right way and that anyone doing anything different is wrong. That sort of view carries it's own karma. Someone is going to step up and show you that they can beat you silly. You are wise to keep hiding and avoid meeting anyone who disagrees with you.

Whatever I can do or what ever I cannot do, got zero to do with the facts in the track record. For no one can go back in time to change history , and no one represent history. Not me for sure.

For you wing chun is a dogma. For me it is a skill. Like boxing, it is not how you learn it or who you learn it from or any of that stuff that matters. What matters is how you perform in the ring. Skill and understanding is only shown through performance. You are one of the guys who think yes they can all beat me silly but I know how things really should be done. It's so pathetic it's funny.

LFJ

03-16-2014, 01:03 AM

Until you learn to distinguish the different between, think, believe , and facts. How can you understand history ?

Good! Now say that looking into the mirror.

PalmStriker

03-16-2014, 10:35 AM

Clues to the Puzzle: :) http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?42497-The-Wing-Chun-Mystery/page9

PalmStriker

03-16-2014, 10:48 AM

EMEI "Tan Sao" : https://www.google.com/search?q=emei+kung+fu&client=firefox-a&hs=DTb&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=HCBmfbYG--02tM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9 GcQJgey2AwiyF1hIGH5Gz3q-Jip7o5owOUXqaqQ3vvhgD9zMTiCYtA%253B470%253B352%253 BhIXRCbNXwWEmuM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.c hina.org.cn%25252Fvideo%25252F2009-02%25252F17%25252Fcontent_17287580.htm&source=iu&usg=__0ldqKAdVFNSv93VDs-03dgL8LOQ%3D&sa=X&ei=N-MlU762G4qtqgHozYCQDw&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=WPrMQVRsW7eaYM%253A%3BMKUseleQrMfmiM%3Bhttp% 253A%252F%252Fimages.china.cn%252Fattachement%252F jpg%252Fsite1007%252F20090217%252F001ec94a1d8b0b04 4cf104.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.china.org.cn%2 52Fvideo%252F2009-02%252F17%252Fcontent_17287580_3.htm%3B1024%3B768

KPM

03-16-2014, 04:40 PM

Clues to the Puzzle: :) http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?42497-The-Wing-Chun-Mystery/page9

Once again, good thread necromancy! Thanks for the link!

aaronh_sf

03-17-2014, 09:26 PM

Photo of Leung Bik:

http://kwansao.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/picture-of-leung-bik/

Do we believe it??????

Please see this post for an explanation of that image's origin:
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67391-This-website-says-that-these-are-Pictures-of-Leung-Jan-Leung-Bik&p=1263586#post1263586

aaron

KPM

03-18-2014, 04:35 AM

Please see this post for an explanation of that image's origin:
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?67391-This-website-says-that-these-are-Pictures-of-Leung-Jan-Leung-Bik&p=1263586#post1263586

aaron

Thanks Aaron! This tells us where you got the photo, but not really where the photo actually came from. What book was it? What did the book say about the photo? As I pointed out earlier, this could have come from a book about fashion designers in China and the guy just happened to be named Leung Bik. It might have nothing to do with the Leung Bik of Wing Chun fame.

hunt1

03-19-2014, 07:37 PM

[QUOTE=KPM;1263123]Hey hunt1!

KPM you think this structure is the same as this? Form starts about 55 seconds in.

Remember, I said "similar" not "same"! ;)

I don't think they structure are similar. The YKS and Leung Sheung idea of the knees squeezing together is very different than the natural shoulder width stance . Leung Jan practiced medicine. What he passed down was in accordance to that basic practice. Closing the knees together blocks the chi flow around the legs in a similar way standing with the stance to wide also blacks the meridian running up the inside of the legs. While these stances may be used in some lines it is not the stance Leung Jan passed down. This goes to the question of differences according to Jui Wan.

I can not talk about all the differences because when I was shown them I was new to wing chun and really it wasn't until many years later that I got an understanding of the depth of the system.

However one the basic differences was the stance. look at what Yip taught his first students compared to later students. He clearly is using a different structure and different footwork

KPM

03-20-2014, 03:58 AM

I don't think they structure are similar.

"Similar" is a relative term. ;)

The YKS and Leung Sheung idea of the knees squeezing together is very different than the natural shoulder width stance .

Yes I agree with you. I prefer the natural shoulder width stance. But sometimes PSWC is also taught with the "knees squeezing" stance as well. But I can't speak to which one would have been original to Leung Jan. The "knees squeezing" may have been picked up by someone at a later date because it is not done consistently from what I have seen.

Leung Jan practiced medicine. What he passed down was in accordance to that basic practice. Closing the knees together blocks the chi flow around the legs in a similar way standing with the stance to wide also blacks the meridian running up the inside of the legs. While these stances may be used in some lines it is not the stance Leung Jan passed down.

This is a good point. I don't know about the whole "blocking chi flow idea" (after all some Chi Gung practice is done sitting cross-legged!) but the natural shoulder width stance works the best from a biomechanical perspective.

However one the basic differences was the stance. look at what Yip taught his first students compared to later students. He clearly is using a different structure and different footwork

True. People haven't really admitted until recent years just how much Yip Man "tinkered with" and changed his Wing Chun over his teaching career. But were these changes from his own innovation and experience, or from the influence of different versions of Wing Chun he was exposed to? This is what's hard to know!

kung fu fighter

03-20-2014, 08:15 AM

The YKS and Leung Sheung idea of the knees squeezing together is very different than the natural shoulder width stance . Leung Jan practiced medicine. What he passed down was in accordance to that basic practice. Closing the knees together blocks the chi flow around the legs in a similar way standing with the stance to wide also blacks the meridian running up the inside of the legs. While these stances may be used in some lines it is not the stance Leung Jan passed down. This goes to the question of differences according to Jui Wan.

Hey Hunt,

when doing YJKYM one's knees should never be squeezing together, that causes tension and energy blockage in the energy channels that run up and down along the inner thaighs. In order to emphasize rooting during early stages of YJKYM training. Some linages Sink in the YJKYM allowing their knees to sink forward together naturally converging towards a third point in the triangle . However again this is just to emphasize good basics during training, but of coarse you wouldn't necessarily fight this way. wing chun uses the 4 powers of float, sink, suck, and spit, sinking is but one of these. Generally when fighting one would be in a natural shoulder width stance allowing for equal opportunity to float, sink, suck, and spit. For example in a real self defence situation one will rarely have the opportunity to set up a formal stance, usually you will be attacked unexpectedly and have to respond from whatever position you are caught in, which should be generally in a position close to our every day natural shoulder width walking stance.

Of course there may be linages that actually do squeeze their knees together, but from my experience the proper way to do it is what I described above, which can sometimes be perceived as knees squeezing together is:

VT Andy

03-25-2014, 04:01 PM

Who has read the newest issue of Wing Chun Illustrated? All dedicated Wing Chun people should subscribe to this. This is a great thing for Wing Chun and needs everyone's support to continue to thrive.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, go here:

http://www.wingchunillustrated.com/

Lots of good articles this month, but I wanted to comment on the ones by or featuring Robert Chu and his comments on Wing Chun history.

Robert stated what many of us have concluded....that the "Leung Bik" story was fabricated and the likely "real" Leung Bik was actually Yuen Kay Shan. Yip Man could not acknowledge Yuen Kay Shan as the sources for his departures from the Wing Chun of his Chan Wah Shun classmates because Yuen had been his childhood friend and was not his primary teacher.

Yip Man's version of Wing Chun was his own in that he innovated some things and adopted some things from others people such as YKS, Chu Chong Man, and others.

Robert also backed up what Hendrik has been telling us recently. Robert noted that he has seen the documents that Hendrik has been referring to, that he has personally trained with the Snake/Crane WCK guys, and that he believes the basic history that Hendrik has researched and laid out. To me, this gives a lot of credibility to Hendrik's research, knowing that someone else very knowledgeable in Wing Chun as well as martial art and Chinese history has checked it out and "vetted it".

I know that won't be enough for a lot of you. But its enough for me! Good going Hendrik! Keep up the good work!

Now go buy the latest issue of WCI to see what I'm talking about! ;)Hi keith thank you for the link. This is interesting. A bit puzzling to claim is the theory on Lueng Bik being Yun Kay San IMO. Why I think this is puzzling is because if Robert Chu story is remotely plausible then there should at least be some big connection or similarity between TWC and YKS gung fu styles but there is no connection no similarity though. But this new claim is kind of shocking to say that Leung Bik is actually Yuen Kay San. Why is William Cheung never credit YKS, never talk about YKS, and why is TWC and YKS not look the same then? If YKS is really Leung Bik then William Cheung TWC has to work like YKS on some level but is not the case.

Robert Chus theory also means that Yip Man could have only lie to everyone about where he learning such stuff which can be very insulting to those families. If this is Robert’s case, then is he also rejecting Yip Man, Yip Chun, William Cheung report about leung Bik? Or something like this could be starting more rumors between these Yip Man, TWC and YKS families? What he says is just conjecture not research would you agree? That is a very strong claim or statement I think he needs to prove connection for any credibility.

I do like what Robert Chu try to do with mixing things up with boxing and wrestling in what he teaches. I enjoy those things too and think that is good and modern. I even like some of his writing but this is just odd and strange theory IMO on Leung Bik = Yuen Kay San. I must disagree against his theory.

If he claim Leung Bik is Yuen Kay San must means he concludes TWC is from Yuen Kay San Wing Chun? Then he also conclude Yip Man make up his own gung fu and is not legit? What to say about these implications to his theory?

Andy

KPM

03-25-2014, 05:13 PM

Hi Andy!

I think you are taking the whole Leung Bik story too literally. Robert Chu's (and others) theory is not that there was a person that fits William Cheung's story that was actually Yuen Kay Shan rather than Leung Bik. Rather the theory is that the Leung Bik story is a fabrication to explain changes in Yip Man's Wing Chun that were derived from Yuen Kay Shan's influence. The alternative theory (that is more of a speculative stretch) is that there actually was a physical person that gave rise to the story, but that person was actually Fung Wah and not Leung Jan's son. But we don't know what Fung Wah's Wing Chun was like.

there should at least be some big connection or similarity between TWC and YKS gung fu styles but there is no connection no similarity though.

Not to open a whole can of worms that has been rehashed multiple times in the past, but the only Wing Chun that TWC resembles is Hung Fa Yi. But no one knows what that connection is. Its likely that Yip Man had very little to do with the development of TWC. I say this because you can see Yip Man's Wing Chun change a bit throughout his teaching career and this is reflected in his students at various phases. And none of them do things similar to TWC.

But this new claim is kind of shocking to say that Leung Bik is actually Yuen Kay San.

Again, that's not what they are saying.

Robert Chus theory also means that Yip Man could have only lie to everyone about where he learning such stuff which can be very insulting to those families.

Origin stories were always a bit exaggerated or fabricated and it wasn't really considered "lying" by the culture of the day. While modern times uses "new and improved" as the slogan to sell things, back then the slogan was "old and traditional." So things often were attributed to some famous ancestor of the past.

What he says is just conjecture not research would you agree? That is a very strong claim or statement I think he needs to prove connection for any credibility.

Not conjecture, and not so much of a stretch of logic. It is a well known fact that Yuen Kay Shan, Yip Man, and Yiu Choi were friends and training partners in Foshan. They were known as the "three heroes of Foshan." Yuen Kay Shan was the senior in both age and Wing Chun training/experience. Therefore it is logical that Yip Man made changes in the Wing Chun taught to him by Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So that were from Yuen Kay Shan's Wing Chun. Then later on the story of Leung Bik was created to explain why Yip Man's Wing Chun was different from what he learned from Chan Wah Shun and Ng Chun So. That is the theory. On the other hand, no one has ever shown the existence of Leung Bik to be factual. There is no trace of him in the historical record. Neither Yip Man's sons or any of his Hong Kong students were around when he would have studied with Yuen Kay Shan or Leung Bik.

I do like what Robert Chu try to do with mixing things up with boxing and wrestling in what he teaches.

Robert does not mix boxing and wrestling into his Wing Chun. I'm not sure where you got that idea!

If he claim Leung Bik is Yuen Kay San must means he concludes TWC is from Yuen Kay San Wing Chun?

Actually, I think he concludes that TWC was largely made up by William Cheung! ;-)

Minghequan

03-25-2014, 09:17 PM

Anyone else notice how Hendrik is not involved anymore in the several historical discussions taking place on the Wing Chun forum? Just an observation.

KPM

03-26-2014, 03:42 AM

Anyone else notice how Hendrik is not involved anymore in the several historical discussions taking place on the Wing Chun forum? Just an observation.

Yes, I did notice that! And I also noticed that when it was pointed out to him that he was most certainly wrong about a statement he made he neither acknowledge it, apologized, or corrected it. He simply ignored it.

Hendrik

03-26-2014, 11:22 AM

Yes, I did notice that! And I also noticed that when it was pointed out to him that he was most certainly wrong about a statement he made he neither acknowledge it, apologized, or corrected it. He simply ignored it.

You are free to think as you like.

However, perhaps, I just give face and not intending to proof anyone wrong?
Silence mades everyone happy.

kung fu fighter

03-26-2014, 01:39 PM

Anyone else notice how Hendrik is not involved anymore in the several historical discussions taking place on the Wing Chun forum? Just an observation.

Why should he waste his time?

I really don't get you guys, when Hendrik shares his view you get upset and argue with him, then when he is silent, you get upset with him lol.

JPinAZ

03-26-2014, 03:25 PM

Ok, so if I'm reading this right Keith, are you saying what Robert is 'sharing' is that both Ip Man and William Cheung are, well, liars? :eek:
I guess you could add Ip Man's sons to the list as well, as my first sifu has personally heard directly from both of them about their father having learned from LB as well. More 'liars'? I surely don't think that's what's being implied here is it?

Further, why would all of these people not just say Yip Man learned form YKS if it was true vs. some made-up person and then keep telling this tale? And without any proof, why would anyone doubt them? I think Ip Man's sons and his direct students would know better than someone today that's never even met Ip Man. But really, who cares if Ip Man learned from LB anway? Unless someone has something to gain from LB not being real? ;) Which IMO would only serve to deligitamize the whole YM lineage for someone's personal gain or promote and agenda.

Minghequan

03-26-2014, 03:59 PM

Why should he waste his time?

I really don't get you guys, when Hendrik shares his view you get upset and argue with him, then when he is silent, you get upset with him lol.

What don't you get? He comes on here starts threads about "His-Story" and when asked for his proof or validation of same simply ignores the questions, post something totally unrelated skipping answering the questions put to him and then when it all gets heavy, takes off!

kung fu fighter

03-26-2014, 04:54 PM

What don't you get? He comes on here starts threads about "His-Story" and when asked for his proof or validation of same simply ignores the questions, post something totally unrelated skipping answering the questions put to him and then when it all gets heavy, takes off!

I know where you and Keith are coming from because I had the same opinion of Hendrik before I met him. But after meeting him, I can tell you Hendrik is one of the most generous and knowledgeable wing chun person out there. So Maybe ask him if you can visit him at some point so that you experience what he is saying first hand, once you feel it, you'll understand right away.

KPM

03-26-2014, 06:00 PM

I know where you and Keith are coming from because I had the same opinion of Hendrik before I met him. But after meeting him, I can tell you Hendrik is one of the most generous and knowledgeable wing chun person out there. So Maybe ask him if you can visit him at some point so that you experience what he is saying first hand, once you feel it, you'll understand right away.

That may be true Navin, but the fact remains that he made a completely wrong statement here and when it was pointed out to him he simply ignored it and stopped posting. He has been telling people that they are wrong about their Wing Chun for so long, but when he himself is caught in an obvious error he skips out! Surely you can see where that doesn't go over too well? If he had simply said.... "you are right! My bad! I didn't realize that is how KLPS was organized! Thanks for the info!" .... I would think much more of him. But he didn't. I had started to really get "on board" with him and have supported him here on several occasions. Robert Chu backing up his theories meant a lot. But then he turns around and makes some rather insulting comments directed at Ku Lo Pin Sun and indirectly at Fung Chun (which I'm sure he would now deny), and when it is pointed out why his opinion is wrong he bows out without apology. That doesn't sound like a very nice guy to me. If someone can't admit when they are wrong, I think that is pretty telling.

KPM

03-26-2014, 06:12 PM

Ok, so if I'm reading this right Keith, are you saying what Robert is 'sharing' is that both Ip Man and William Cheung are, well, liars? :eek:

Not exactly "liars." I explained that above.

I guess you could add Ip Man's sons to the list as well, as my first sifu has personally heard directly from both of them about their father having learned from LB as well. More 'liars'? I surely don't think that's what's being implied here is it?

Yip Man's sons were not around during this period of Yip Man's training. They are simply repeating the stories that they were told.

Further, why would all of these people not just say Yip Man learned form YKS if it was true vs. some made-up person and then keep telling this tale?

Yuen Kay Shan was not from Yip Man's lineage. Chu Chong Man and Tang Yik were not from Yip Man's lineage. From what I understand, it would have been considered improper to go outside of one's lineage for further training. Leung Bik would have been part of Yip Man's lineage since he was supposedly Yip Man's grand-teacher's son. But I can't say that I fully understand the Chinese family/lineage traditions and politics. I'm just trying to explain what I understand about the theory that Robert Chu and others have proposed. Hunter has pointed out that there were trips to Fung Wah's gravesite to honor him. Where is Leung Bik's gravesite? Why do we not hear of trips to his gravesite to honor him?

And without any proof, why would anyone doubt them? I think Ip Man's sons and his direct students would know better than someone today that's never even met Ip Man.

None of them were around during this period of Yip Man's life. None of them met Leung Bik. They are just repeating a story they were told. No one has provided any factual evidence that Leung Bik actually existed other than a photograph of unknown origin and questionable authenticity. But we know Yuen Kay Shan was real. We know Chu Chong Man and Tang Yik were real. We know that Yip Man spent time with all three of them. We have Sum Nun saying that Yuen Kay Shan shared the Chi Sao rolling platform with Yip Man. We have a rival story saying that Yip Man learned from Fung Wah, not Leung Bik. So which story do we believe?

But really, who cares if Ip Man learned from LB anway? Unless someone has something to gain from LB not being real? ;) Which IMO would only serve to deligitamize the whole YM lineage for someone's personal gain or promote and agenda.

I think its just for the sake of history and curiosity. Personally, I like history. The person that stood the most to gain from the Leung Bik story has already ridden that horse all the way to the bank and doesn't need it any more. ;)

Minghequan

03-26-2014, 08:33 PM

I know where you and Keith are coming from because I had the same opinion of Hendrik before I met him. But after meeting him, I can tell you Hendrik is one of the most generous and knowledgeable wing chun person out there. So Maybe ask him if you can visit him at some point so that you experience what he is saying first hand, once you feel it, you'll understand right away.

Navin, Thanks for your reply. But as Keith said, Hendrik doesn't come across as the "caring, sharing kind of guy".

OI too started supporting Hendrik in some of his posts but when he blatantly comes on here and tells other people they have got it all wrong, that he is the only one who has got it right and that others Wing Chun is not Wing Chun .... well I lost respect for him and his message right there.

I myself have asked him for some of his insights into certain subjects to which he has said yes only for that information never to surface which kind of leads me to hazard a guess that he doesn't want to share or he doesn't have that information and is talking up a load of bull!

You simply6 cannot come to respect someone who constantly implies that only he has the "good oil" and that others have all got it wrong.

Regardless of what martial arts you do that's just not good etiquette and regardless of the martial arts that kind of behavior is simply not mindful or respectful of others.

Herein lies Hendrik's problems all of his own making!

kung fu fighter

03-26-2014, 10:47 PM

But then he turns around and makes some rather insulting comments directed at Ku Lo Pin Sun and indirectly at Fung Chun (which I'm sure he would now deny), and when it is pointed out why his opinion is wrong he bows out without apology. That doesn't sound like a very nice guy to me.

Keith everyone is entitled to their own Opinion, Hendrik included. I am pretty sure Jim Roselando Probably showed Hendrik PSWC since Jim visited him a few times.

What was the insulting comments Hendrik directed at Ku Lo Pin Sun and indirectly at Fung Chun? I don't remember reading anything like that.

KPM

03-27-2014, 04:15 AM

Keith everyone is entitled to their own Opinion, Hendrik included. I am pretty sure Jim Roselando Probably showed Hendrik PSWC since Jim visited him a few times.

What was the insulting comments Hendrik directed at Ku Lo Pin Sun and indirectly at Fung Chun? I don't remember reading anything like that.

I'm not going to rehash the whole thing. It is laid out over several threads. Essentially Hendrik said that any WCK method is incomplete without the SNT form. I pointed out to him that KLPS does not have the SNT form, and that Fung Chun would have likely not have been happy to hear Hendrik theorize that his WCK was incomplete. Hendrik essentially said "so be it that's the way it is!" Jim chimed in and pointed out that Hendrik really doesn't know much about KLPS and has never really researched it. Like you, I had assumed that Hendrik knew more about KLPS than he actually does! Related to this Hendrik also essentially said that the "gong" development from the SNT form is what is lacking or incomplete in methods that don't have the form and that this "gong" is not developed in San Sik. So I have gone into pretty extensive detail on several different threads to show what I meant by the term "San Sik" from a KLPS perspective, and how the KLPS San Sik train everything that can be trained in the full SNT form. Yet Hendrik continued to repeat his refrain that "gong does not equal San Sik" and never acknowledged my explanation of the San Sik of KLPS and never admitted that his initial impressions were wrong. In this very thread just a few posts up he said:

However, perhaps, I just give face and not intending to proof anyone wrong?
Silence mades everyone happy.

Does that sound like someone ready to admit that they may have been wrong about something? Its no big deal. I'm wrong about things all the time! And I'll admit it when it happens! It just rubs me the wrong way (and evidently I'm not the only one) when someone else isn't willing to do the same!

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 12:13 PM

Keith everyone is entitled to their own Opinion, Hendrik included. I am pretty sure Jim Roselando Probably showed Hendrik PSWC since Jim visited him a few times.

What was the insulting comments Hendrik directed at Ku Lo Pin Sun and indirectly at Fung Chun? I don't remember reading anything like that.

I totally agree on everyone is free on their own opinion, me included.

Jim and I being in very closed communication and sharing for almost a decade now.
Never is there exist a case of insulting anyone or any lineages. If I insult late Gm Fung Chun, Jim will be the first one to raise the flag on me. Since Jim is directly related to and study from Gm Fung Chun.

Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set which San sik never have . That is the bottom line.
Ancient Chinese martial art is a hundreds of year old science. I don't write that. And if one never develop gong, how can one know what is it?

Lots of things I don't want to discuss and choose to keep in silence these days because , it is common that when some cannot face the facts, they will switch to accusation such as insult, stealing, .....etc.

Using the guilty before proven innocent tactics just to win an arguement.

or trying to turn others or their students to against me
for thier own winning strategy which completely got nothing to do with the subject.
I am not interested in such .

My interest is to share , discuss and , present facts and realistic technical information. Not to participate in any form of cult type of believe . Or approval and control game . Or to make anyone or any lineage including myself as GOD.

Time is a great fact teller. Just wait long enough one will see things clearly as things will settle in the coming few years.

KPM

03-27-2014, 01:09 PM

Jim and I being in very closed communication and sharing for almost a decade now.

Yes. But Jim himself noted that you don't know much about KLPS and haven't researched it much.

Never is there exist a case of insulting anyone or any lineages. If I insult late Gm Fung Chun, Jim will be the first one to raise the flag on me. Since Jim is directly related to and study from Gm Fung Chun.

You said KLPS was an incomplete method of Wing Chun. I think that is a bit insulting to anyone that has spent years studying the style, let alone the majority of their life! I think that is a bit of an insult to the memory of Leung Jan Si Jo, given that KLPS is considered his final legacy and summation of his teaching. You are saying that he passed on an incomplete and therefore somehow substandard version of Wing Chun in Ku Lo village. I find that a little insulting.

Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set which San sik never have . That is the bottom line.

Did you even read what I wrote about the KLPS approach to training and using San Sik?

Lots of things I don't want to discuss and choose to keep in silence these days because , it is common that when some cannot face the facts, they will switch to accusation such as insult, stealing, .....etc.

I was truly interested in how you would justify your comments as they apply to KLPSWCK, but you chose not to respond to any of my explanations or examples. That sure seems to me like it was you not "facing the facts."

My interest is to share , discuss and , present facts and realistic technical information. Not to participate in any form of cult type of believe . Or approval and control game . Or to make anyone or any lineage including myself as GOD.

How about just carrying on an honest discussion?...which means not avoiding other people's input and conclusions when they conflict with your own. It means answering reasonable questions when they are asked of you. It means responding to people's points.

Vajramusti

03-27-2014, 02:22 PM

[QUOTE=hunt1;1262308]Have to disagree about Yip man history. I have a great deal of respect for Robert but he is just repeating stories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cherry picking through hearsay aint history!!

Also- YKS wing chun is quite different from Ip Man's wing chun---on stance, structure and turning and footwork.
But repeated opinions that YKS taught Ip Man or that HKM did not finish his pole work with IM is just another
opinion. But pseudo history abounds in many of these threads.

KPM

03-27-2014, 02:57 PM

Also- YKS wing chun is quite different from Ip Man's wing chun---on stance, structure and turning and footwork.
.

Which "Ip Man's wing chun" are you referring to? Because the version he taught to Leung Sheung was pretty similar to YKS Wing Chun in stance, structure, pivoting and footwork. You are as guilty of "pseudo history" as anyone else!

Vajramusti

03-27-2014, 03:10 PM

Which "Ip Man's wing chun" are you referring to? Because the version he taught to Leung Sheung was pretty similar to YKS Wing Chun in stance, structure, pivoting and footwork. You are as guilty of "pseudo history" as anyone else!

Not writing history at all. Just considered judgement call. Analysis of structure, function and motion.------ Cherry picking nonsense above. Leung Shun was IM's first HK student. He was already accomplished in a different style.
... which has some back weighting--- CLF possibly. Old habits are not easy to change. Leug Ting learned from one of Leung Shun's students- hence the back weighting is there.
Ip man. WSL, HKM- no back weighting. Guilty? Nah! But-Take it any way you want.

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 03:45 PM

Never is there exist a case of insulting anyone or any lineages. If I insult late Gm Fung Chun, Jim will be the first one to raise the flag on me. Since Jim is directly related to and study from Gm Fung Chun.

You said KLPS was an incomplete method of Wing Chun. I think that is a bit insulting to anyone that has spent years studying the style, let alone the majority of their life! I think that is a bit of an insult to the memory of Leung Jan Si Jo, given that KLPS is considered his final legacy and summation of his teaching. You are saying that he passed on an incomplete and therefore somehow substandard version of Wing Chun in Ku Lo village. I find that a little insulting. ----------k

Please Read my previous post.
Did I say Kulo San sik . iE , the 22 ...etc, or KLPS system?

Please Ask Jim, there is a big different between them. As I have suggested you to visit him in my previous post. Find out what are they and how complete your art is before jump gun on me will help.

Also, why bring the "insult" term up in a technical discussion?

You are free to consider anything you like. And I have respect for your free thinking and opinion. However, bringing the insult term up constantly is just diverting technical.

Here I like to propose to you to visit Jim , get it iron out things.

Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set which San sik never have . That is the bottom line.

Did you even read what I wrote about the KLPS approach to training and using San Sik? ----k

Please Visit Jim and let him explain to you what I am presenting in the above in details is better.

Lots of things I don't want to discuss and choose to keep in silence these days because , it is common that when some cannot face the facts, they will switch to accusation such as insult, stealing, .....etc.

I was truly interested in how you would justify your comments as they apply to KLPSWCK, but you chose not to respond to any of my explanations or examples. That sure seems to me like it was you not "facing the facts." ---K

Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set which San sik never have . That is the bottom line.

Has justify everything. If you know the content of my post.

Again, I suggest you visit Jim and leg him explain to you.

My interest is to share , discuss and , present facts and realistic technical information. Not to participate in any form of cult type of believe . Or approval and control game . Or to make anyone or any lineage including myself as GOD.

How about just carrying on an honest discussion?...which means not avoiding other peiople's input and conclusions when they conflict with your own. It means answering reasonable questions when they are asked of you. It means responding to people's points.-----k

Honest discussion is

Not a single San sik in any Wck lineage today is be able to develop the gong as in SNT.

And I am not interested to tear things apart technically in the public.
Thus, I strongly suggest you visit Jim to learn about what I am talking about to get a full view.

Ps:

For those who is interested why San sik can't replace SNT?

Just take a look, one always heard the Sam Pai Fut section in SNT is for training internal art.

And ask ,
why since , hundred years ago before Leung jan time to the present time from different lineages of Wck, one doesn't break the Sam pai fut section of SNT and threat it as San sik alone to train the internal art? Why not?

The answer is

Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set .

Vajramusti

03-27-2014, 04:37 PM

[QUOTE=Hendrik;1264073]N

[B]Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set which San sik never have . That is the bottom line.

(((I Agree with Hendrik-slt is not san sik strung together. Many chose to call the first important movements as sam pai fut -praying thrice to the Buddha but actually that label or term is possibly more appropriate
to the end section of the biu gee form. But the first section of the slt is where the proper energies are developed when done well. But technical discussions are not easy in the net forum medium.))Joy c.

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 05:02 PM

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 05:51 PM

This is I believe of some relevance to the discussion taking place as it mentions the Kuit as posted here on this forum:

Snake Crane Wing Chun Yung Kwok Wing Athletic Association （蛇鶴詠春翁國榮體育會）

Declaration from Wayne Yung :

I was in doubt why Mr. Hendrik Santo, after leaving SCWC, he changes our 1890 secret book to 1894 Snake crane lineage document, especially under the comment of the YouTube(the True Origin of Wing Chun part 2) produced by Sifu Sergio, who mentioned 1890 there. There is big discrepancy. Also, he change his old kuen kuit and SCWC kuen kuit, and the secret book year from 1890 to 1894. He has his explanation in 'Wing Chun Forum' group.

I hereby declare that, our secret book was written in 1890, and the English meaning of the kuits already published in the Wing Chun magazine published by New Martial Hero (Europe) in June issue, 2013. Also, you can find a copy of those I posted to the Kung Fu Magazine forum in December 2011. Any SCWC kuits and the document year referred, we have been discussing in the past two years in the facebook and in the Kung Fu Magazine forum in December 2011. Please be aware that ONLY SCWC related being published in the past becomes public property. However, there is no right for those who INTENTIONALLY make any changes and say SCWC kuit to mislead others.

KPM

03-27-2014, 05:58 PM

Not writing history at all. Just considered judgement call. Analysis of structure, function and motion.------ Cherry picking nonsense above. Leung Shun was IM's first HK student. He was already accomplished in a different style.
... which has some back weighting--- CLF possibly. Old habits are not easy to change. Leug Ting learned from one of Leung Shun's students- hence the back weighting is there.
Ip man. WSL, HKM- no back weighting. Guilty? Nah! But-Take it any way you want.

Back-weighting, using the K1 point as the pivot rather than the heel, an emphasis on a "softer" version of Wing Chun....just a coincidence? Just a "left-over" from Leung Sheung's prior Choy Li Fut? I kind of doubt that! And it has been shown that Yip Man's own Wing Chun evolved and changed with time. Hence differences in later students. So who is cherry picking what here?

Vajramusti

03-27-2014, 06:09 PM

[QUOTE=KPM;1264082]Back-weighting, using the K1 point as the pivot rather than the heel, an emphasis on a "softer" version of Wing Chun....just a coincidence? Just a "left-over" from Leung Sheung's prior Choy Li Fut? I kind of doubt that! And it has been shown that Yip Man's own Wing Chun evolved and changed with time. Hence differences in later students.
\
((generally LS people will be quizzical about K1 point. RC speaks to that but acupuncture point and the gravitational path are quite different things.Ypu can keep on arguing.)) JC

So who is cherry picking what here?

((imo-You are-- navigating all over the place without a compass!!))JC

KPM

03-27-2014, 06:14 PM

Wow Hendrik! You really didn't read anything I posted on the other threads did you? It seems pretty obvious from what you've said here.

Please Read my previous post.
Did I say Kulo San sik . iE , the 22 ...etc, or KLPS system?

Please Ask Jim, there is a big different between them.

Ok. So I'm confused. Are you NOW saying that your previous comments don't apply to KLPSWCK??

Also, why bring the "insult" term up in a technical discussion?

What technical discussion? I posted on more than one thread technical things about the KLPS San Sik to show why I disagreed with your conclusions and you replied to NONE of them! So just what technical discussion are you talking about?

Here I like to propose to you to visit Jim , get it iron out things.

What happened to having a "technical discussion"? Just repeating over and over that I need to visit Jim is not having a technical discussion.

Gong is not San sik According to traditional Chinese martial art.
And SNT is not just many San sik strung together , there are process development sequence steps embedded within snt set which San sik never have . That is the bottom line.

And I described how the initial KLPS San Sik are elements of the original SNT form that are learned and developed in sequence and are a process of development. I went to lengths to demonstrate and ask what the difference would be from training sections of the form individually versus training them one after the other in sequence. But you didn't acknowledge or respond to any of that technical discussion. And yet you say this:

Has justify everything. If you know the content of my post.

So again, I ask you, where is the "technical discussion" that you claim you were having?

Honest discussion is Not a single San sik in any Wck lineage today is be able to develop the gong as in SNT.

Ok. Again. I am confused. Just above in your post you said there was a difference between KLPS, KL22, etc. So does what you are saying apply to KLPS as passed on by Leung Jan in Ku Lo village or not? Do you consider Leung Jan's art "incomplete" and therefore somehow substandard because it does not have the SNT as one continuous form? Just answer this question.

KPM

03-27-2014, 06:19 PM

\
((generally LS people will be quizzical about K1 point. RC speaks to that but acupuncture point and the gravitational path are quite different things.Ypu can keep on arguing.)) JC

That was certainly some obfuscating! You managed to skirt around my entire point by quibbling over whether K1 is the exact biomechanical point of pivoting or not! :rolleyes:

((imo-You are-- navigating all over the place without a compass!!))JC

And I'm the one navigating without a compass!!! Really? :p

Vajramusti

03-27-2014, 06:24 PM

This is I believe of some relevance to the discussion taking place as it mentions the Kuit as posted here on this forum:
------------------------------------------------

What is the relevance? Hendrik takes a lot of flak --- sometimes deserved- but he takes it well.

KPM

03-27-2014, 06:42 PM

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

What is the relevance? Hendrik takes a lot of flak --- sometimes deserved- but he takes it well.

I believe this was the part Ron was referring to?

he change his old kuen kuit and SCWC kuen kuit, and the secret book year from 1890 to 1894.

If I read this correctly, this Snake-Crane Wing Chun lineage expert seems to be saying that Hendrik rather "liberally translated" the kuen kuit from Yik Kam lineage and SC lineage so that they would match or fit and then mis-stated the year. I don't read Chinese so I don't know whether that is true or not. But given that Hendrik has been holding out the Snake-Crane book as proving his theories, and now the person knowledgeable of said book is questioning Hendrik's use of it....I think that is relevant. As far as taking flak well? He simply ignores it and doesn't answer other people's valid points.

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 06:46 PM

Thanks Keith, That is the part I am referring to.

I believe this statement by Wayne Yung puts Hendrik's comments in a far more clearer perspective than does Hendrik's comments themselves.

Vajramusti

03-27-2014, 06:50 PM

chunner

03-27-2014, 07:05 PM

[QUOTE=KPM;
Ok. Again. I am confused. Just above in your post you said there was a difference between KLPS, KL22, etc. So does what you are saying apply to KLPS as passed on by Leung Jan in Ku Lo village or not? Do you consider Leung Jan's art "incomplete" and therefore somehow substandard because it does not have the SNT as one continuous form? Just answer this question.[/QUOTE]

I would also be interested to hear Jim's view on this as well. Although, from the YouTube video of Fung chun, they do have what Hendrik mentions as the snake section and the som bai fut. Jim has mentioned Fung Chun talking about loose legs and body as well, so I think it matches up, KLPS would have the same core SLT/WCK gong. What I'm interested to know is, does KLPS only have the 12 fists and what Fung Chun showed more of a demo?

PalmStriker

03-27-2014, 08:31 PM

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 08:44 PM

:D Possibly a typo. Hendrik, quote, 2012:
Hendrik
Hendrik is offline Registered User

Join Date
Jul 2002
Posts
7,329

page five in this presentation has the photocopy of the 1890 writting of snake and crane wing chun.

seeing is believing and an evidence is better then a thousand years of speculation.

http://www.slideshare.net/ccwayne/hi...-wing-chun-mun

1.

If others want to make my typo as large as tsunami.
And create issue base on their view.

I let them do it. It is a free world.
I have more important things to do then wasting time answering people's very creativity .

2.
For those who has free time to burn about kuit...etc,

The following is an open to public information since years ago, these kuit information is not a secret, it even shown in Hong Kong martial art movie.

see for yourself here, how different people translate kuen kuit differently and it exist in public even years ago by evidence.

So, is there a standard? Evidentally no. It is an open to public information as in this YouTube by evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItLyF2qaS3M&feature=youtube_gdata

3.
Also, ask yourself,

There exist How many version of English translation of the simple Wck kuit " lay lau hoi song , lut sau Jin Choong" or come retain.....etc.

So be realistic .

The Chinese charater never changes in this case,
but how many English version are there? And are they all correct? Can anyone claim to be the correct and all others wrong?

4. Some people just have to learn to see what is reality and what is open to public information. Instead of making out things from what is not an issue at all. That is wasting time.

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 08:50 PM

I would also be interested to hear Jim's view on this as well. Although, from the YouTube video of Fung chun, they do have what Hendrik mentions as the snake section and the som bai fut. Jim has mentioned Fung Chun talking about loose legs and body as well, so I think it matches up, KLPS would have the same core SLT/WCK gong. What I'm interested to know is, does KLPS only have the 12 fists and what Fung Chun showed more of a demo?

There are lot more inner circle teaching most don't know .

Fung chun loose legs and body is similar to the lower four bows of the seven bows which i am talking about here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-rXVSPeIJ8&feature=youtube_gdata

As Jim says there are san gong and San sik.
Different stuffs.

Evidentally, many doesn't aware of, they never know what is Shan gong, instead of keep pressing the San sik what they learn is everything. Well, they are not aware of they don't have a complete art. When I brought this up, people accuse me insult Leung jan....etc. Look at Fung chun video, asked the questions, why are these snt stuffs there before jump gun on me.

As Joy, share about SNT here. No way Shan sik is a compete art in Wck.

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 09:13 PM

Hendrtik,

Wayne Yung is not only referring to the date change but also something more sinister:

he change his old kuen kuit and SCWC kuen kuit,

there is no right for those who INTENTIONALLY make any changes and say SCWC kuit to mislead others.

I think deliberately changing the Snake Crane Kuen Kuit is just a little more than a "typo!"

These people have stated that you have "INTENTIONALLY" made changes to their Kuen Kuit to "Mislead others".

This is an assertion and for them a claim of fact and not some "typo"

Your answer?

Also what if any is your relation to the Snake Crane Wing Chun Yung Kwok Wing Athletic Association （蛇鶴詠春翁國榮體育會）?

LFJ

03-27-2014, 09:21 PM

I believe this was the part Ron was referring to?

he change his old kuen kuit and SCWC kuen kuit, and the secret book year from 1890 to 1894.

If I read this correctly, this Snake-Crane Wing Chun lineage expert seems to be saying that Hendrik rather "liberally translated" the kuen kuit from Yik Kam lineage and SC lineage so that they would match or fit and then mis-stated the year.

The translations for S2飛麟九轉表掌通 were shown in another thread. I think they are both quite liberal, but I don't have experience in this lineage to know exactly what is meant by it. But I find there are some problems.

They said it was translated in the New Martial Hero (Europe) as;
"Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques."

Then Hendrik's translation was;
"The spine of the Flying snake turn nine ways to represent the through of the force flow handling."

The problem with both translations though is that there is no mention of a head or a spine. There is no mention of a specific body part turning at all, and the animal named is a Chinese unicorn. I don't know how that turns into "snake" in the translation. Look the thing up. It's nothing like a snake.

Literally;

飛= flying
麟= Chinese unicorn (female)
九= nine
轉= turns
表= represent
掌= palms
通= pass through

I would render it something like;
Nine turns of the Chinese unicorn represent the palms unobstructed.

Again, what that "palms unobstructed" means or refers to is not for me to say, but this is a more literal (not liberal) translation. Although 通 usually refers to energy channels being open. So while Hendrik's translation is kind of wordy, it seems to fit more than "the palm techniques", which would be 掌法 jeung-faat/zhangfa.

chunner

03-27-2014, 09:35 PM

kuits are written in classical chinese, which at the time some characters could have had very different meanings in the context

The translations for S2飛麟九轉表掌通 were shown in another thread. I think they are both quite liberal, but I don't have experience in this lineage to know exactly what is meant by it. But I find there are some problems.

They said it was translated in the New Martial Hero (Europe) as;
"Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques."

Then Hendrik's translation was;
"The spine of the Flying snake turn nine ways to represent the through of the force flow handling."

The problem with both translations though is that there is no mention of a head or a spine. There is no mention of a specific body part turning at all, and the animal named is a Chinese unicorn. I don't know how that turns into "snake" in the translation. Look the thing up. It's nothing like a snake.

Literally;

飛= flying
麟= Chinese unicorn (female)
九= nine
轉= turns
表= represent
掌= palms
通= pass through

I would render it something like;
Nine turns of the Chinese unicorn represent the palms unobstructed.

Again, what that "palms unobstructed" means or refers to is not for me to say, but this is a more literal (not liberal) translation. Although 通 usually refers to energy channels being open. So while Hendrik's translation is kind of wordy, it seems to fit more than "the palm techniques", which would be 掌法 jeung-faat/zhangfa.

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 09:38 PM

The translations for S2飛麟九轉表掌通 were shown in another thread. I think they are both quite liberal, but I don't have experience in this lineage to know exactly what is meant by it.

But I find there are some problems.

They said it was translated in the New Martial Hero (Europe) as;
"Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques."

Then Hendrik's translation was;
"The spine of the Flying snake turn nine ways to represent the through of the force flow handling."

The problem with both translations though is that there is no mention of a head or a spine. There is no mention of a specific body part turning at all, and the animal named is a Chinese unicorn. I don't know how that turns into "snake" in the translation. Look the thing up. It's nothing like a snake.

Literally;

飛= flying
麟= Chinese unicorn (female)
九= nine
轉= turns
表= represent
掌= palms
通= pass through

I would render it something like;
Nine turns of the Chinese unicorn represent the palms unobstructed.

Again, what that "palms unobstructed" means or refers to is not for me to say, but this is a more literal (not liberal) translation.

Although 通 usually refers to energy channels being open.

So while Hendrik's translation is kind of wordy, it seems to fit more than "the palm techniques", which would be 掌法 jeung-faat/zhangfa.

The reason of the existing of the S2 label in front of the Chinese character
is because when the new martial hero magazine article is written,
we know, there is no perfect translation.

In the future better and better translation will surface. Might not be just one translation either.

So, the S2 is label , the Chinese character never change, but expect to have different version of translation. That is reality if we want to share the information to the western world.

And this kuit might be translated to Italian, French, Spanish .....etc. How can there is only one translation?

Hendrik

03-27-2014, 09:54 PM

Btw,

IMHO,

The 麟 of the 飛麟九轉 is actually 鱗 in ancient Chinese. Or 蛇鱗。

thus, 飛麟 I translate it as means the spine of the flying snake.

Thus,

S2飛麟九轉表掌通

"The spine of the Flying snake turn nine ways to represent the through of the force flow handling."

And ,

the spine of the flying snake is refer to as " the fingers and arm with many joints."

Nine turn means flexible like the snake .

So, what it says is

the fingers and arm with many joints flexible turning to develop the throught of the force flow handling from the shoulder to the finger tips.

That is the description of the snake reeling section of SNT which sifu Sergio shows in this utube started 6.13 , credited Wayne and Snake crane WC in the second half of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVDAQusy944&feature=youtube_gdata

I am trying to help as much as I can but sometimes people just mis understand and take me in a wrong way . Did I change anything? No, I am trying to make it even clear based on ancient Chinese as much as I know. Could I be wrong? Sure but the above is the reason of what I do. Everything i do can be open under the sun for everyone to examine.

Finally,

Does it got to do with yik kam lineage as some one speculate above? Nope. In fact, I threat every Wck lineages equal.

Yik kam kuit comes with details and link directly to the emei 12 zhuang writing . In fact, I let the emei writing define the yik kam writing as it is .

For those who is interested,
The following is the yik kam kuit for the snake section of the snt as shown in above sifu Setgio video.

Y6手臂鞭出橫力勁
The hand and arm whip out the horizontal jin
Y7神寄指爪䄂底旁。
Pay attention to the finger, craw , and the side under the sleeve .
Y8旋迥自然順脈氣
Spiral twisting naturally , follow the breathing and the direction of the qi.

Y7 and Y8 are both from quoted from the emei 12 zhuang writing . Details definition of Y7 and Y8 exist in emei 12 zhuang writing. Where the six core elements : body, mind, breathing , Qi, force flow, and momentum are defined.

Again, the kuit is label with Y6 Y7 Y8 for the reason of there is no perfect translation. In fact, the yik kam kuit is even difficult to translate because the compact writing of the emei style and one can translate it based on any elements of the six core elements.

In fact, the term " under the sleeve" in Y7 is a type of unique Jin of emei .
And it is a uniqueness of Wck Jin too. Where do you think the snap of the sun punch is from?
The under the sleeve of emei.

As sifu sergio in his video, I am trying to tell you there are lots of indepth things in SNT and it belongs to every Wck lineages because it is from our ancestors, but if you want to take me in a wrong way. There is nothing I can do.

If we go back far enough, we all are one Wck family, there is where my heart is, no way i try to screw other lineage to make one lineage better. No one can change the past, facts are already surface. I can't change it. It is as it is. I can only report they exist .

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 10:42 PM

Statement by Snake Crane Wing Chun Yung Kwok Wing Athletic Association （蛇鶴詠春翁國榮體育會）

It is interesting that Sifu Sergio, in his video, had mentioned about the 1890 full written document . Does it exist or be getting proved? Hendrik Santo always mention 1894 document today, but in the last two years, he was always in very high profile talking about SCWC 1890 document. Did he see or read it ? Interesting question, isn't it? He had requested me to open up and asked me to write the true description paper on New Martial Hero, and in the ebook. What information he gets, that's all from these public domains only. How come he represents us to say anything on Snake Crane Wing Chun today.

May be what Sifu Sergio mentioned the one, Sae Hoc Wing Chun, not Snake Crane Wing Chun, may be from other hidden lineage too. Also, sure Hendrik Santo finds the other hidden lineage from 1894, and he got the full document from them, those I don't know. Just queries only!!!

Today, as a chief in my Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun, I don't care how Hendrik Santo interprets what my disclosure about our Lim Tau Song, the paper on the true description in NMH and the ebook PERSONALLY.

However, he (Hendrik Santo) changes our kuit wordings in English , misinterpreting the meaning and presenting them OPENLY to the public. It is totally ridiculous and is not the right way !!!

Law's family preserves the Snake Crane Wing Chun skill document for over 160 years, how come you guys coming and asking for baishi, then trying to get it It is totally no ethics, and nonsense.

Daniel Fong

03-27-2014, 10:44 PM

Btw,

IMHO,

The 麟 of the 飛麟九轉 is actually 鱗 in ancient Chinese. Or 蛇鱗。

thus, 飛麟 I translate it as means the spine of the flying snake.

Thus,

S2飛麟九轉表掌通

"The spine of the Flying snake turn nine ways to represent the through of the force flow handling."

And ,

the spine of the flying snake is refer to as " the fingers and arm with many joints."

Nine turn means flexible like the snake .

So, what it says is

the fingers and arm with many joints flexible turning to develop the throught of the force flow handling from the shoulder to the finger tips.

That is the description of the snake reeling section of SNT which sifu Sergio shows in this utube started 6.13 , credited Wayne and Snake crane WC in the second half of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVDAQusy944&feature=youtube_gdata

I am trying to help as much as I can but sometimes people just mis understand and take me in a wrong way . Did I change anything? No, I am trying to make it even clear based on ancient Chinese as much as I know. Could I be wrong? Sure but the above is the reason of what I do. Everything i do can be open under the sun for everyone to examine.

Finally,

Does it got to do with yik kam lineage as some one speculate above? Nope. In fact, I threat every Wck lineages equal.

Yik kam kuit comes with details and link directly to the emei 12 zhuang writing . In fact, I let the emei writing define the yik kam writing as it is .

For those who is interested,
The following is the yik kam kuit for the snake section of the snt as shown in above sifu Setgio video.

Y6手臂鞭出橫力勁
The hand and arm whip out the horizontal jin
Y7神寄指爪䄂底旁。
Pay attention to the finger, craw , and the side under the sleeve .
Y8旋迥自然順脈氣
Spiral twisting naturally , follow the breathing and the direction of the qi.

Y7 and Y8 are both from quoted from the emei 12 zhuang writing . Details definition of Y7 and Y8 exist in emei 12 zhuang writing. Where the six core elements : body, mind, breathing , Qi, force flow, and momentum are defined.

Again, the kuit is label with Y6 Y7 Y8 for the reason of there is no perfect translation. In fact, the yik kam kuit is even difficult to translate because the compact writing of the emei style and one can translate it based on any elements of the six core elements.

In fact, the term " under the sleeve" in Y7 is a type of unique Jin of emei .
And it is a uniqueness of Wck Jin too. Where do you think the snap of the sun punch is from?
The under the sleeve of emei.

As sifu sergio in his video, I am trying to tell you there are lots of indepth things in SNT and it belongs to every Wck lineages because it is from our ancestors, but if you want to take me in a wrong way. There is nothing I can do.

麟 is 麟. 鱗 is 鱗. This is what we call changing the meaning Hendrik. Do you think the Wing Chun ancestors from the past writing down their Chinese is not as clear head as you? Who are you to interpret SCWC Kuen Kuit to the world? Stop stirring ****. IMHO, If you are humble then you shouldn't have an opinion. There is no such thing as an humble opinion only faker does that.

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 10:50 PM

More regarding Hendrik Santo's posts from my conversations with Wayne Yung Snake Crane Wing Chun Yung Kwok Wing Athletic Association （蛇鶴詠春翁國榮體育會）:

How he can represent us to have other meaning. I learned scwc over 35 years, and I don't know, just he knows. ha ha ha.

Besides Kuit, need a Sifu to lead, otherwise will go something else. With anyone getting the kuit, means no need Sifu. ha hah.. Hendrik Santo is kuit and is also sifu. He can represent white crane and knows more than you. He know SCWC more than me. In traditional training, 口傳身受, Does he understand what this Chinese statement mean. Just guess, based on his present knowledge. Later, as his knowledge richer, will change again, 10 years later, more change. It is his practices, right. remember is 口傳身受.

口傳身受, it is the most traditional way for hundred years. Not like him, just based on the kuen kuit, knowing how to do.

How much did his Sifu teaching his kuen kuit? How long he stay with his Sifu?

We have been practicing for over 5 generation based on the kuit, Nowadays, his present explanation, we were doing wrongly in the past, he is right to get the meaning of it. ha ha ... SCWC is descending right after splitting to 3 sets., the second generation. Over 160 years, Hendrik Santo comes out, and said my ancestors in second generation may be the first one, getting the wrong meaning to practice. His meaning is more meaning. Ha ha...

One may have to read a little between the lines but I am sure most will understand what Sifu Yung is saying.

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 10:52 PM

Hendrik,

Some questions:

These people have stated that you have "INTENTIONALLY" made changes to their Kuen Kuit to "Mislead others".

This is an assertion and for them a claim of fact and not some "typo"

1/. Your answer?

2/. Also what if any is your relation to the Snake Crane Wing Chun Yung Kwok Wing Athletic Association （蛇鶴詠春翁國榮體育會）?

3/. How much did his Sifu teaching his kuen kuit? How long he stay with his Sifu?

Minghequan

03-27-2014, 10:59 PM

Sifu Yung has requested I post the following:

口傳身受, it is the most traditional way for hundred years. Need a sifu to guide, then understand what the kuit means and follows. Otherwise, some other unexpected effect coming out. Not like Hendrik, just based on the kuen kuit, knowing how to do.

JPinAZ

03-27-2014, 11:04 PM

Ron, it's hopeless getting anything out of this guy.
A few months back Henrik had created a thread here stating that he has not trained much snake crane wing chun at all, that he does not represent this lineage and admitted he has little-to-no actual experience in it (even though he constantly talks & writes on their information as if he does, as you well know and have pointed out). Funny enough, he took that thread down shortly afterwards, most likely to save himself further embarrassment once people realized he has no real experience with which he bases his 'conclusions' on regarding this lineage.
And he's deleted other threads he's started that also exposed him in the past.
And he continuously deletes comments on FB threads as well (as has also been pointed out).

Why do all of this if he's a genuine researcher just sharing info with nothing to hide? IMO, the man is a phony and is constantly trying to cover up these facts. But he can't hide the truth from those that know can he?

LFJ

03-27-2014, 11:07 PM

麟 is 麟. 鱗 is 鱗. This is what we call changing the meaning Hendrik.

Exactly. People not only change things as they see fit but add other things that are not in the original text at all. I don't understand why it's so difficult to just translate what it says!

If you want to translate it into another language to let people understand it, just say exactly what it says. Leave the interpretation to the ones in the lineage teaching it in person, or add your understanding as an afterword. But when it comes to translation, just say exactly what the hell it says!

LFJ

03-27-2014, 11:10 PM

Funny enough, he took that thread down shortly afterwards, most likely to save himself further embarrassment once people realized he has no real experience with which he bases his 'conclusions' on regarding this lineage.

Or any lineage. Is there any reason to think he actually trains WCK at all?

JPinAZ

03-27-2014, 11:15 PM

Or any lineage. Is there any reason to think he actually trains WCK at all?

LOL - Exactly! What kind of martial artist doesn't train and has no demonstrated skill?? What kind of researcher can't even produce one fighter with the ancient 'most correct' methods he drones on about thread after thread?? :eek:
It's clear he doesn't really train WCK besides doing SNT and we can see that by watching his videos. That's why when pressed on the matter, he tells people not to look at him or his results (which there are none) but to look at other people and see what they do. Or it's 'not about him' and to do it yourself. Without proven results of his own, he's not doing anything but talking a lot of hot air!

LFJ

03-27-2014, 11:38 PM

kuits are written in classical chinese, which at the time some characters could have had very different meanings in the context

I'm aware of that possibility. I do CE translation professionally in China. But nothing in that line is a snake or a spine. It doesn't say 蛇鳞, unless the line is written incorrectly. The left side of 麟 is the character 鹿 which means deer. If you look at the female Chinese unicorn, it's an ancient mythological creature resembling a deer. This is the ancient character for it. This character can't be used to mean 鳞. The only thing they have in common is the phonetic part of the character. So either the original Chinese was written incorrectly, or people are translating it incorrectly. Which do you think is more likely?

Hendrik

03-28-2014, 12:05 AM

I'm aware of that possibility. I do CE translation professionally in China.

But nothing in that line is a snake or a spine.

It doesn't say 蛇鳞, unless the line is written incorrectly. The left side of 麟 is the character 鹿 which means deer.

If you look at the female Chinese unicorn, it's an ancient mythological creature resembling a deer. This is the ancient character for it.

This character can't be used to mean 鳞. The only thing they have in common is the phonetic part of the character. So either the original Chinese was written incorrectly, or people are translating it incorrectly.

Which do you think is more likely?

IMHO,

1.

If one is train in ancient Classical Chinese,

In ancient Chinese there is practice which
one uses the elegance character with the same sound or phonetic or pronounciation rather then the proper character.

Thus use the elegance character 麟 with the same sound instead if using 鱗 which is not as elegance。

Of cause It also can be one might copy S2 incorrectly , but I like to find a good reason to not go that direction.

2.

The nine turn is another key in the writing to point to snake. Unicorn doesn't do multiple turn.

3. Thus, from above 1 and 2, We know it has to be 鱗 or scales is refer as snake scales ,

but snake scales doesn't link with nine turn, thus, it has to be the spine of the snake.

Snake scale and spine relationship

蛇的身体内有一条很长的脊梁骨，这条脊梁骨由很多块脊椎骨连接而成。

每块脊椎骨的两边，各有一根肋骨，每根助骨下面和腹部的鳞片连着。腹部的鳞片是它爬行的关键。鳞片呈长方形，如同坦克的履带一样。蛇的肋骨可以自由地向前向后运动。肌肉收缩时，肋骨就牵着鳞片活动起来，鳞片这时就翘起来了，像一排排小脚紧扒着地面，运载身体前进。

4. And when it link up, the writing Echo each other's ,

S2飛麟九轉表掌通

Spine of the flying snake nine turn present the through of the force flow.

And it makes sense because that section of the snt is the snake reel section and to open up and activate all joints of from the fingers to the shoulder.

5. That is the ancient Chinese way of read it. IMHO .

6. And when cross examine with the yik kam slt training and kuit of the same section, it confirm it is a snake reel section description .

With yik kam kuit is more details and involve the six core elements, and S2 is describing the physical element mainly.

7. So my translation is based on ancient Chinese language practice, and cross examination with other lineages description to verify if it is the case. And in this case, it fit both.

Certainly , there can be many other English translation , mine is not the only one. However, one do have to know ancient Chinese to translate otherwise it will not making much sense if one just translate it with goggle or present day Chinese.

Btw, another hint of it is a flying snake because it is snake crane nim tau writing. Thus the content can't be fish scale or unicon.

8.
As soon as the S2 Chinese character is kept the same, the translation will only improve with time. That is what count. One needs to start some where and keep improve .

Disregard of the snake spine....etc agree or not agree...etc

We do know, the nine turn refer to the flexible turning of the fingers , arm , and shoulder joints. That is the only way to have force flow through or penetrate from shoulder to finger tip.

So, we do know the direction of this writing to a large degree.

9. Sure, if one uses yik kam kuit, then, one knows the exact due to the clear emei definition. And can cross check and verify with emei practice . Which is what I have been doing since decades ago with many wcners who study emei directly from emei Gm.

10, now take a look at this translation of the same S2 飛麟九轉表掌通

"Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques."

I think it is not presenting the key ideas as much as the above translation.

IMHO, 掌通 cannot be palm technics but the force flow penetrate through is closer. Also this snake section is not about palm technics but finger technics is more likely. So, palm technics seems not likely to fit in.

But then is ok. Everything needs a start

Hendrik

03-28-2014, 12:34 AM

kuits are written in classical chinese, which at the time some characters could have had very different meanings in the context

True.

Please read my posts and see, how I approach it From different direction instead of just translate words but look at how things converges from multiple angle.

LFJ

03-28-2014, 12:52 AM

In ancient Chinese the practice is
one uses the elegance character with the same sound or phonetic or pronounciation rather then the proper character.

Calling your arm a snake is already elegant enough. There's no reason to call an arm a snake and a snake a unicorn.

The fact is you're changing it to say what you want it to say or what you think it means, not just honestly translating what it actually says.

The nine turn is another key in the writing to point to snake. Unicorn doesn't do multiple turn.

Says who? It's a mythological creature. It can do what it wants.

Daniel Fong

03-28-2014, 01:10 AM

chunner

03-28-2014, 02:14 AM

Agree. There is no such thing as flying snake in classical Chinese. only mythological creature like dragon or unicorn. It is a laughing stock from us Chinese seeing this explanation. Flying Snake? Tickle me hard.

Daniel, I take it you are from SCWC? You must be familiar with the SCWC kuit then. Well, according to the published translation mentioned in New Martial Hero which is identified as the "truth" it says: "Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques."

IMO, Hendrik's isn't that far off and is one of the interpretations that makes sense when matched with his YK kuit.

Daniel Fong

03-28-2014, 02:33 AM

Daniel, I take it you are from SCWC? You must be familiar with the SCWC kuit then. Well, according to the published translation mentioned in New Martial Hero which is identified as the "truth" it says: "Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques."

IMO, Hendrik's isn't that far off and is one of the interpretations that makes sense when matched with his YK kuit.

chunner. All I can say is there are 9 ways in the Chinese palm techniques.

KPM

03-28-2014, 04:05 AM

Hendrik, you ignored my entire post and got side-tracked. What happened to carrying on a reasonable discussion? I'm still waiting for an answer to this:

Ok. Again. I am confused. Just above in your post you said there was a difference between KLPS, KL22, etc. So does what you are saying apply to KLPS as passed on by Leung Jan in Ku Lo village or not? Do you consider Leung Jan's art "incomplete" and therefore somehow substandard because it does not have the SNT as one continuous form? Just answer this question.

Kellen Bassette

03-28-2014, 07:44 AM

Agree. There is no such thing as flying snake in classical Chinese. only mythological creature like dragon or unicorn. It is a laughing stock from us Chinese seeing this explanation. Flying Snake? Tickle me hard.

Not taking sides in the debate, but we do all know that flying snakes are a real animal...right?

http://flyingsnake.org/

Daniel Fong

03-28-2014, 08:38 AM

Not taking sides in the debate, but we do all know that flying snakes are a real animal...right?

http://flyingsnake.org/

In old medical chinese, flying snake is a illness.
http://www.ihome99.com/wap/forum-1153-thread-177101324703873864-1-1.html?cityName=fz&version=0.7.5.0327

Hendrik

03-28-2014, 08:43 AM

Calling your arm a snake is already elegant enough. There's no reason to call an arm a snake and a snake a unicorn.

The fact is you're changing it to say what you want it to say or what you think it means, not just honestly translating what it actually says.

Says who? It's a mythological creature. It can do what it wants.

LFJ,

1. Since you are a professional translator , why not come up with a translation of S2 which you think is the best fit according to you And share? That will be greatly appreciated.

2.
For me,

Without going into unicorn, snake, snake spine, and snake heard.....etc

"the fingers and arm joints flexibly turning nine ways to develop the throught of the force flow handling , from the shoulder to the finger tips."

Is what I think the bottom line of the message of S2

But that is just me, I hope for more better translation to come for S2.

3. my analogy,

S2 is like the line in the bible.

My translation is just I am showing the way how I understand the line , based on my background and other cross reference of the snake section which is in the SNT of YKS, YK, and Ipman Lineage biu Jee set.

I don't believe there or that is the a only way of understanding and translate.

Many ways can be proper. Thus, there is no the only way.

KPM

03-28-2014, 09:40 AM

Hendrik

03-28-2014, 12:14 PM

Well Hendrik, what I gathered from what Sifu Yung has written is this: You are basing your "ancient WCK DNA" upon a combination of Yik Kam and Snake Crane lineage writings and saying you have uncovered the original and true way to practice the SNT form. Yet your interpretation of the Snake Crane writings doesn't match their interpretation which they have passed down face to face by personal instruction for over 100 years. So if you think you have the "original" real thing that makes other people's Wing Chun "incomplete" and what you have is different from what Snake Crane teaches based upon their own writings.....then you are essentially saying that they are wrong! You are saying that their Wing Chun is incomplete as well because their interpretation is not the same as yours so they can't have the correct "gong" in their training! That seems to be what Sifu Yung is a bit upset about!

And you STILL haven't answered this:

Ok. Again. I am confused. Just above in your post you said there was a difference between KLPS, KL22, etc. So does what you are saying apply to KLPS as passed on by Leung Jan in Ku Lo village or not? Do you consider Leung Jan's art "incomplete" and therefore somehow substandard because it does not have the SNT as one continuous form? Just answer this question.

Please answer my question!

Since it is obvious you don't read my previous posts, This is the last time I would repeat my answer to you .

1. You and Any one is free to get creative and imaginative , but I am not going to comment on anyone s creativity products just because they get creative.

Please read

My recent post with LFJ in this thread
and
the following ebook by Wayne and myself , Ie : chapter 1, chaper 4 , chapter 8, and chapter 11.

before get more creative .

http://www.slideshare.net/ccwayne/r2-28589490

2. Many times, I have already advised you to go study with Jim Rosallendo who has the indepth art and find out for yourself. The same answer again and again.

BPWT..

03-28-2014, 12:31 PM

Hi Hendik,

On the one hand you say these things are just your translations and interpretations, and that you could be wrong. (so you sound humble and non-committal)

On the other hand you say the truth is coming out and being revealed once again, and that some lineages are missing things that you're uncovering. (so you sound as though your writing is factual and thus correct)

You must see that you can't have it both ways.

Why not just say what is in your lineage's training - as you learnt it - and invite discussion to see if others train similar things?

Hendrik

03-28-2014, 12:43 PM

On the one hand you say these things are just your translations and interpretations, and that you could be wrong. (so you sound humble and non-committal) -------

Please read my previous posts on S2 translation with LFJ.

On the other hand you say the truth is coming out and being revealed once again, and that some lineages are missing things that you're uncovering. (so you sound as though your writing is factual and thus correct)-------

Please read the ebook by Wayne and myself as I refer to in the previous post

http://www.slideshare.net/ccwayne/r2-28589490

And
or

view sifu Sergio two parts videos on Wck mothers art from three weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCkc5UNZqk&feature=youtube_gdata -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVDAQusy944&feature=youtube_gdata

And please not present me more than what have been present above

You must see that you can't have it both ways.
Why not just say what is in your lineage's training - as you learnt it - and invite discussion to see if others train similar things? ---------

Please refer to my above two replies.

JPinAZ

03-28-2014, 01:16 PM

Well Hendrik, what I gathered from what Sifu Yung has written is this: You are basing your "ancient WCK DNA" upon a combination of Yik Kam and Snake Crane lineage writings and saying you have uncovered the original and true way to practice the SNT form. Yet your interpretation of the Snake Crane writings doesn't match their interpretation which they have passed down face to face by personal instruction for over 100 years. So if you think you have the "original" real thing that makes other people's Wing Chun "incomplete" and what you have is different from what Snake Crane teaches based upon their own writings.....then you are essentially saying that they are wrong! You are saying that their Wing Chun is incomplete as well because their interpretation is not the same as yours so they can't have the correct "gong" in their training! That seems to be what Sifu Yung is a bit upset about!

This has always been the case with this guy. He openly admitted that he had little to no training in snake/crane wing chun and does not represent them in his quickly deleted thread. And it's clear he is getting all of his so-called 'facts' from other lineage's writing that he isn't relaly part of, with no real hou chum san sau learning behind it - just guessing and misinterpretations which is backed up by the REAL snake crane lineage practitioners!
And then when you call him on it, he tells you to watch someone else's video for proof, when that video only recently came out and is based on Hendrik's 'findings'! :confused:
he's always been this way and always will be - all show and no beef.

BPWT..

03-28-2014, 02:10 PM

Hi Hendrik,

I have read your posts - and you are claiming a) to be just giving 'your' interpretation, and b) saying you are revealing/uncovering what 'was' in WCK in the past.

Both can't be correct.

I have also watched Sergio's videos. He is largely quoting what you've told him, and he's holding that up to be factually correct.

Though as LFJ and others have pointed out, your translations are not accurate, and Sergio's ideas (that Chinese practitioners simply misunderstood Chinese mean regarding, for example, the stance work) is not logical.

I like that you freely express your ideas about your Wing Chun, but I do wish you and Sergio would not paint it as something correct and factual.

Sergio has a desire to research and learn, but he also likes to pick things that he thinks will help boost his position and set him aside from others.

Minghequan

03-28-2014, 02:45 PM

Hendrik ..... The would be "Fake" Buddhist ...... know what I'm talking about Hendrik???

Minghequan

03-28-2014, 03:16 PM

Wait, wait, wait .... is that .. Is that Hendrik in the photo?

KPM

03-28-2014, 03:55 PM

2. Many times, I have already advised you to go study with Jim Rosallendo who has the indepth art and find out for yourself. The same answer again and again.

That is NOT an answer!

Once again I ask you:

Ok. Again. I am confused. Just above in your post you said there was a difference between KLPS, KL22, etc. So does what you are saying apply to KLPS as passed on by Leung Jan in Ku Lo village or not? Do you consider Leung Jan's art "incomplete" and therefore somehow substandard because it does not have the SNT as one continuous form? Just answer this question.

The fact that you refuse to answer this is very telling in my opinion! The fact that you refuse to just come right out and say that you think KLPS is "incomplete" and somehow substandard or deficient despite the fact that you have indirectly implied this in multiple places is....how would one say it?....spineless? Is not Jim's KLPS also deficient and substandard because he does not do the entire SNT form? So why would you tell me to go study with him?

VT Andy

03-28-2014, 05:12 PM

Hello KPM,

Sorry to be gone a few days wow this thread has so much going ons. RE leung Bik not being Leung Bik and something other than is still one thing to believe or not actually believe is OK. That is also fine for anyone to decide IMO free thinking but I and my friends in NY WC community really don’t see this is the case going on here. I think this thread really show strong example of Robert Chu and Hendrik are really doing the same thing to the public is that so many people all see stating opinion is one thing but make statements beyond what they actually know and speaking for others is very much different than just opinion. They both also insulting others rather than just state opinion would you agree?

I come from the old ways and my friends from Sifu Terence Yip group in NY. Some still value giving credit to their sources like Yip Man, William Cheung, Moy Yat, etc do they demonstrate sense of integrity and honesty with respect to their elders but lots of people seen over the decades Robert Chu never do as his elders with right culture and ethics he seems very anti-authority but try to be authority to new generation. These older generations tend not to behave to charge others with making up things and misrepresenting informations about others to the public but Robert and hendrik and Sergio does with no shame no responsibility IMO. Many years ago Robert Chu came to Sifu Terence Yip for information but Robert was too ****y and arrogant and was a big turn off which not really persuade my Sifu to share with him. Next thing we hear Robert was telling people that Sifu Yip was wanting to learn from him! That is deliberate BS. That was a very negative experience

Robert cross lots of people in past with this same behaviors and maybe he don’t realize or don’t care. Could be the way he is and some think can understand. That is ok to be human but one should hope to learn how to be decent and more humble over time. Do you think this is reasonable assumption?

Now going back to Leung Bik theory I really feel uneasy for Robertto say this about Leung Bik in this way as he has done is without doubt is insulting to many other groups and also is very irresponsible. If he believe or do not believe in Leung Bik as was report by several people in past is his own business then say he doesn’t believe it but he goes ****her to say Leung Bik is FAKE. That is the rub and insult and irresponsible. Robert and Hendrik IMO are same in this way speaking more than they really know here and on FB too. I feel very bad for Sifu Wayne Yung after reading things on this thread and on FB. Hendrik really causing a lot of mess and confusion only show he is interested in his own story than respect others. What can this do to their credibility?

Good day to all
Andy

KPM

03-28-2014, 06:17 PM

Please read the ebook by Wayne and myself as I refer to in the previous post

And please not present me more than what have been present above

.

Hendrik I don't know anything about your eBook with Wayne Yung. I do know that Sifu Sergio is just quoting info you have given him, so referring to his videos isn't proof of anything. But the thing you need to deal with and address are these quotes attributed to Sifu Wayne Yung, because they seriously call into question your credibility:

Please be aware that ONLY SCWC related being published in the past becomes public property. However, there is no right for those who INTENTIONALLY make any changes and say SCWC kuit to mislead others.

We have been practicing for over 5 generation based on the kuit, Nowadays, his present explanation, we were doing wrongly in the past, he is right to get the meaning of it. ha ha ... SCWC is descending right after splitting to 3 sets., the second generation. Over 160 years, Hendrik Santo comes out, and said my ancestors in second generation may be the first one, getting the wrong meaning to practice. His meaning is more meaning. Ha ha...

口傳身受, it is the most traditional way for hundred years. Need a sifu to guide, then understand what the kuit means and follows. Otherwise, some other unexpected effect coming out. Not like Hendrik, just based on the kuen kuit, knowing how to do.

KPM

03-28-2014, 06:50 PM

Hi Andy!

They both also insulting others rather than just state opinion would you agree?

I definitely agree that Hendrik has managed to insult both the Ku Lo Pin Sun Wing Chun lineage and the Snake Crane Wing Chun lineage right here in this forum. But I don't see Robert Chu insulting anyone in the article from WCI that was referred to where he talked about the Yuen Kay Shan theory.

lots of people seen over the decades Robert Chu never do as his elders with right culture and ethics he seems very anti-authority but try to be authority to new generation.

I don't know anything about that. I'm just going by the logic behind the theory as he has stated it.

Now going back to Leung Bik theory I really feel uneasy for Robertto say this about Leung Bik in this way as he has done is without doubt is insulting to many other groups and also is very irresponsible. If he believe or do not believe in Leung Bik as was report by several people in past is his own business then say he doesn’t believe it but he goes ****her to say Leung Bik is FAKE.

Well, the problem is that no one can prove that the Leung Bik story isn't fake. No one can show Leung Bik descendants. No one can show a Leung Bik grave site. No one can show other students taught by Leung Bik. No one can show records of Leung Bik. Yet we know that Yuen Kay Shan, Chu Chong Man, and Tang Yik were all real. We know that Yip Man spent time with each of them. None of the people re-telling the Leung Bik story....neither Yip Man's sons or his students....were around when Yip Man was supposed to have trained with Leung Bik to actually see it. They are all just repeating a story. That's not insulting to anyone. Those are simply the facts of the matter.

Daniel Fong

03-28-2014, 06:59 PM

Hendrik I don't know anything about your eBook with Wayne Yung. I do know that Sifu Sergio is just quoting info you have given him, so referring to his videos isn't proof of anything. But the thing you need to deal with and address are these quotes attributed to Sifu Wayne Yung, because they seriously call into question your credibility:

Please be aware that ONLY SCWC related being published in the past becomes public property. However, there is no right for those who INTENTIONALLY make any changes and say SCWC kuit to mislead others.

We have been practicing for over 5 generation based on the kuit, Nowadays, his present explanation, we were doing wrongly in the past, he is right to get the meaning of it. ha ha ... SCWC is descending right after splitting to 3 sets., the second generation. Over 160 years, Hendrik Santo comes out, and said my ancestors in second generation may be the first one, getting the wrong meaning to practice. His meaning is more meaning. Ha ha...

口傳身受, it is the most traditional way for hundred years. Need a sifu to guide, then understand what the kuit means and follows. Otherwise, some other unexpected effect coming out. Not like Hendrik, just based on the kuen kuit, knowing how to do.

KPM, Sifu Wayne was used by Hendrik IMHO. That's why SCWC is very upset.

Daniel Fong

03-28-2014, 07:07 PM

Hi Andy!

None of the people re-telling the Leung Bik story....neither Yip Man's sons or his students....were around when Yip Man was supposed to have trained with Leung Bik to actually see it. They are all just repeating a story. That's not insulting to anyone. Those are simply the facts of the matter.

You are wrong. GM Ip Chun is re-telling his father story because his very own father GM Yip Man has told him the story.

LFJ

03-29-2014, 01:14 AM

LFJ,

1. Since you are a professional translator , why not come up with a translation of S2 which you think is the best fit according to you And share? That will be greatly appreciated.

2.
For me,

Without going into unicorn, snake, snake spine, and snake heard.....etc

"the fingers and arm joints flexibly turning nine ways to develop the throught of the force flow handling , from the shoulder to the finger tips."

I already did previously in my first post. As you can see at the end of the post, I also gave you credit in the second half of your translation. Your translation of the 掌通 part is very wordy, but appears to be more accurate than "palm techniques" which would be 掌法.

I only offered a rather literal translation of the line, because I don't have the experience with the lineage to interpret its meaning.

But here's that part of my post:

Literally;

飛= flying
麟= Chinese unicorn (female)
九= nine
轉= turns
表= represent
掌= palms
通= pass through

I would render it something like;
Nine turns of the Chinese unicorn represent the palms unobstructed.

Again, what that "palms unobstructed" means or refers to is not for me to say, but this is a more literal (not liberal) translation. Although 通 usually refers to energy channels being open. So while Hendrik's translation is kind of wordy, it seems to fit more than "the palm techniques", which would be 掌法 jeung-faat/zhangfa.

LFJ

03-29-2014, 01:19 AM

Though as LFJ and others have pointed out, your translations are not accurate,

Well, actually, I only took issue with the first part of his translation. The same issue is also true with the, I guess, "official" translation though! The second half of Hendrik's translation is just wordy, but seems accurate.

On the other hand, the "official" translation that was published in the New Martial Hero (Flying snake rotates the head in nine ways to represent the palm techniques.) is just completely wrong. There's no mention of a snake, a head, or palm techniques.

Of course, I don't have experience in their lineage, so perhaps if it were taught to me I would have a clearer understanding of what is meant by the line and know how to interpret it. But just from a translation perspective, it's really inaccurate. The part that seems to matter, the second half, I think Hendrik has translated better.

Daniel Fong

03-29-2014, 02:27 AM

Shadow_warrior8

03-29-2014, 03:36 AM

Hi Andy!

Well, the problem is that no one can prove that the Leung Bik story isn't fake. No one can show Leung Bik descendants. No one can show a Leung Bik grave site. No one can show other students taught by Leung Bik. No one can show records of Leung Bik. Yet we know that Yuen Kay Shan, Chu Chong Man, and Tang Yik were all real. We know that Yip Man spent time with each of them. None of the people re-telling the Leung Bik story....neither Yip Man's sons or his students....were around when Yip Man was supposed to have trained with Leung Bik to actually see it. They are all just repeating a story. That's not insulting to anyone. Those are simply the facts of the matter.

I am just going to provide the link, the pictures say it all.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.349128988508337.85727.118477494906822&type=3

KPM

03-29-2014, 06:37 AM

I am just going to provide the link, the pictures say it all.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.349128988508337.85727.118477494906822&type=3

Thanks for the link! Nice to see all the info on Leung Bik gathered in one place. I didn't realize there were so many mentions of Leung Bik in various places. It certainly gives me pause and will require me to rethink things!

It occurs to me that the central piece here is that New Martial Hero Magazine interview with Yip Man where he mentions Leung Bik. Several of his long-time students have said they had never even heard of Leung Bik until that magazine article appeared. Most of the mentions of Leung Bik noted on the facebook page could very well have come after that magazine article and used it as the source for their statements. And we've talked about those photos here already. It is unclear where they came from or whether they are truly pictures of Leung Bik. But still.....it is compelling to see so many sources outside of Yip Man lineage also mention Leung Bik! Certainly worth reconsidering the basic story!

I will admit that I have been a bit prejudiced towards the Leung Bik story. Likely others have felt the same way for the same reason. Let me explain, because some points of Wing Chun history seem to fade from memory as time goes on.

The Leung Bik story only really made an impression when William Cheung made it the centerpiece for promoting his "Traditional Wing Chun." William Cheung published his version of the story in Inside Kung Fu Magazine in the early 80's and caused a lot of controversy. His version of the story went like this:

Chan Wah Shun was interested in Leung Jan's Wing Chun, but LJ was not teaching publicly. So CWS secretly watched LJ teaching his two sons, Leung Bik and Leung Chun by peering through a knot-hole in the fence and started to copy what they were doing. But LJ noticed him and so began to teach an altered or modified version of Wing Chun so that CWS wouldn't see the "real thing." Later on he agreed to take CWS as a student, but continued to teach him this "modified" version so that CWS would be at a disadvantage compared to LJ's sons. But CWS never knew he had learned this "modified" version and because he was a big strong man he was able to make it work very well for him. This is what he taught to Yip Man. Then YM was in Hong Kong going to high school as a teenager and met an old man there. He challenged the old man to a fight and the old man beat him easily. He discovered that the old man was Leung Bik and became his student. Leung Bik passed on to Yip Man the "real" or "Traditional" version of Leung Jan's Wing Chun. But Yip Man did not teach this "true" version of Wing Chun to any of his students. He waited until William Cheung came along and only taught it to him. Then he made Cheung promise not to reveal it to anyone until after Yip Man's death. Then William Cheung leaves and goes to Australia and eventually starts teaching "Traditional Wing Chun" and forms his organization with this Leung Bik story as his justification for saying he is "Grandmaster" of the "real" or "Traditional" version of Wing Chun and all of his Si Hings and Si Dais in Hong Kong are practicing the "Modified" and therefore incomplete and inferior version of Wing Chun (sounds kind of like Hendrik's story, doesn't it!). As you might guess, this DID NOT go over well with the rest of the Yip Man clan! Yip Man was now dead and gone and unable to set anything straight. The ONLY breadcrumb trail was that interview in New Martial Hero Magazine. So hopefully you can see how people then became very skeptical of the entire Leung Bik story!

The problem with William Cheung's story is the idea that this "Traditional" version of Wing Chun was superior to the "modified" version that everyone else was doing, yet Yip Man never taught it to anyone else! He taught it only to a troubled teenager that then left for Australia and was sworn to secrecy. Yip Man did not teach it to the group of adult men who were his dedicated students and remained closely associated with him right up until the day of his death. Men like Ho Kam Ming and Wong Shun Leung. And William Cheung's Wing Chun doesn't look like anyone else's Wing Chun except Hung Fa Yi. Any link between the two is still very unclear and no one is talking! William Cheung's Wing Chun looks NOTHING like the Wing Chun that Leung Jan passed on in Ku Lo Village. So, other than William Cheung's loyal students, no one in the Wing Chun world took Cheung's version of the Leung Bik story seriously. And that has carried over.

And I'll note that William Cheung seems to have essentially stopped telling that story in recent years, probably hoping that people will forget about it.

LFJ

03-29-2014, 06:51 AM

Don't tell anyone this secret until after I'm dead and no one can confirm it with me. Then reveal it to the world. You will have all the followers. Trust me. ;)

Sounds like a great practical joke! :p

Vajramusti

03-29-2014, 06:51 AM

Hendrik ..... The would be "Fake" Buddhist ...... know what I'm talking about Hendrik???
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? Questioning Hendrik's beliefs? He is a Buddhist.
I am not referring to his wing chun.

joy chaudhuri

Vajramusti

03-29-2014, 06:59 AM

I am just going to provide the link, the pictures say it all.
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.349128988508337.85727.118477494906822&type=3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the link.

As for myself. 1. Ip Man's wing chun is self consistent and different from Chan Wah Son and others.2 Its not a hotch poch.
3. Envy, arrogance and search for status play a role in doubting Ip Man about his own roots.

joy chaudhuri

LFJ

03-29-2014, 07:00 AM

Vajramusti

03-29-2014, 08:18 AM

Speaking of, I just saw an old "monk" on the subway yesterday. Oddly he was wearing green PLA shoes and sitting on a little stool he carried with his robe dragging on the floor behind him.

Saw another one a few months ago pestering people for money on the streets at like 1 or 2am, wearing shorts under his robes.

If I see him again I'll challenge him to recite the Heart Sutra. If he can maybe I'll give him 5 RMB or so. :p
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One does not have to wear a robe or recite the Heart Sutra, or go to a temple to be a Buddhist.

joy chaudhuri

LFJ

03-29-2014, 08:34 AM

One does not have to wear a robe or recite the Heart Sutra, or go to a temple to be a Buddhist.

No, but to impersonate a monk, inaccurately, is to be a fake Buddhist for sure. :p

KPM

03-29-2014, 12:09 PM

My belief has always been that Fung Wah and Leung Bik were the same individual. Though this information on facebook isn't definitive proof, to me it is very plausible and the most likely scenario. More than likely his real name was Leung Bik but was known more widely by his nickname Fung Wah and not the other way around. .

Yes, very interesting! If Fung Wah was simply the popular nickname for Leung Bik, this would explain why there is no gravesite visits to Leung Bik. But does "Fung Tai Wah" have a nicknamish meaning like Muk Yan Wah means "wooden man Wah"?

KPM

03-29-2014, 12:21 PM

Sifu Wayne Yung just posted in facebook:

. As a new stranger coming to baisee, they are ,of course, indoor disciple only. How come they can take a copy of the full document, which is still preserved today. As they are thinking in this way, it is totally not making any senses. ridigulous. Today, someone said they have seen and own our full document. Of course, I like to read it too, and compare with ours.

As HS always raises up his wck, and step down others, of course, including SCWC, without any internal. Please go to watch and compare our three set forms, and definitely you can find somthing and sure HS wrong.

.

Someone correct if I'm wrong, but Sifu Yung seems to be saying that Hendrik did the Baisee ceremony with him or someone else in the SCWC lineage. As a "discipleship" ceremony doesn't that imply commitment to learn the system in-depth and abide by your Sifu's rules and requests? Has Hendrik done that?

Sifu Yung also seems to be saying that he himself, as a Sifu in the SCWC lineage, has not actually seen the whole "book" that keeps getting written about. Yet Hendrik has?

Sifu Yung is also seems to be saying that he is taking offense at Hendrik's idea that SCWC is missing the proper "gong" because the don't train the way Hendrik has "discovered." Sounds like the same thing I said about the KLPS San Sik, doesn't it?

VT Andy

03-29-2014, 06:42 PM

Sifu Wayne Yung just posted in facebook:

Law's family preserves the Snake Crane Wing Chun skill document for over 160 years, how come you guys coming and asking for baisee, then trying to take one. It is totally no ethics, and nonsense.

I have been in the Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun over 35 years, and a lot of my siHingDai, over 20 years too, not all of us owning, even seeing the full document We are a very traditional Mun family. We have a lot of restrictions governed by our Mun's rules, and that's why I am still in low key today, even we surfaced up few years ago.

There are in-door and in-room discipleships in SCWCM . As a new stranger coming to baisee, they are ,of course, indoor disciple only. How come they can take a copy of the full document, which is still preserved today. As they are thinking in this way, it is totally not making any senses. ridigulous. Today, someone said they have seen and own our full document. Of course, I like to read it too, and compare with ours.

As HS always raises up his wck, and step down others, of course, including SCWC, without any internal. Please go to watch and compare our three set forms, and definitely you can find somthing and sure HS wrong.

R, not all the things can be shared. If you own 1 billion US doallars, will you share all assets out to the public? For those which can be shared, we share it out already in the New Martial Hero magazine and the Redboat era wck ebook in the last 5 years. Among the papers, conversation with SCWCM in 2008 by the Chief editor of NMH, also listed in the Slideshare.Net, is the first paper relating to our kuits. Finally, be sure what you own, then telling to the public, otherwise it will mess up a lot TODAY the peaceful wck community.

Hi Daniel Fong thank you for sharing this from FB.

This is what my friends explain is why they do not trust people like this as well because they have seen this all through Hendrik and Robert Chu's past. but two doors to enter into baisee offers more protection against disloyal ones.

I think this statement explain importance of tradition for the disciples in the first door fresh or not still no full authority or entrust will full knowledge like captain commander level type as example but if it is Robert "R" is the one baisee then Sifu Yung already see he is not worthy of responsibility as he say the baisee student has NO ethics and NO sense! If he is talking about Robert Chu then his experience is also is same or very similar situation as other Sifu involved with Robert.

As my Sifu once said Robert Chu was up to no good now we see here he took advantage of Sifu Yung which is shameful and unfortunate for the SCWCM. Now i think it should be a major question to ask on motive of Robert Chu Sergio and Hendrik to always be against Yip Man clan year after year misrepresenting misinterpreting and misusing others information and indirectly accusing others to be false mistaken incomplete etc.

My friend from the Moy Yat clan explain it to me as "its like some stranger yelling outside your house saying your great grandfather never existed. That is ridiculous. That is what Robert Chu is doing."

Sifu Yung who is traditional master can see through Hendrik very easy. Hendrik is not so smart as Hendrik thinks. This is very damaging for his credibility.

Sifu Yung final word of advice in this statement is very common sense for honest people: "Finally, be sure what you own, then telling to the public, otherwise it will mess up a lot TODAY the peaceful wck community."

VT Andy

03-29-2014, 06:46 PM

Someone correct if I'm wrong, but Sifu Yung seems to be saying that Hendrik did the Baisee ceremony with him or someone else in the SCWC lineage. As a "discipleship" ceremony doesn't that imply commitment to learn the system in-depth and abide by your Sifu's rules and requests? Has Hendrik done that?

Sifu Yung also seems to be saying that he himself, as a Sifu in the SCWC lineage, has not actually seen the whole "book" that keeps getting written about. Yet Hendrik has?

Sifu Yung is also seems to be saying that he is taking offense at Hendrik's idea that SCWC is missing the proper "gong" because the don't train the way Hendrik has "discovered." Sounds like the same thing I said about the KLPS San Sik, doesn't it?

Hi Keith,

I think Sifu Yung is referring to the baisee as "R" to mean Robert Chu not Hendrik but Hendrik is involved with them somehow.

VT Andy

03-29-2014, 07:02 PM

Well, the problem is that no one can prove that the Leung Bik story isn't fake. No one can show Leung Bik descendants. No one can show a Leung Bik grave site. No one can show other students taught by Leung Bik. No one can show records of Leung Bik. Yet we know that Yuen Kay Shan, Chu Chong Man, and Tang Yik were all real. We know that Yip Man spent time with each of them. None of the people re-telling the Leung Bik story....neither Yip Man's sons or his students....were around when Yip Man was supposed to have trained with Leung Bik to actually see it. They are all just repeating a story. That's not insulting to anyone. Those are simply the facts of the matter.Hi Keith,

The problem is also like a double the sword too isn't it? Cannot prove left or right actually but what exists is the knowledge left behind from somewhere to learn and pass on. I am 3 generations removed from my great grandparents and have no proof art all of their existence at all. Everything lost and destroyed in the wars of my country. All i have are stories from my grandparents and parents. I cannot prove they existed or who they were but i also cannot prove they didn't exist except for their children being my grandparents. All I can do is believe them.

For Leung Bik to exist or not exist the knowledge that Yip Man passed to William Cheung exists, like me only having stories of my great grandparents, which i am sure students and masters of different groups have had decades to vet the merit of William Cheung teachings. Can't prove Leung Bik existed but also cannot prove he didn't exist. Sometimes there are people who choose to stay hidden and leave no trace other than their influence on others. I think Leung Bik was likely this kind of person but i think i read someone here also post that Leung Bik may have relative still alive but unconfirmed?

VT Andy

03-29-2014, 07:16 PM

I searched and found this link reference a Leung Man Lok as Leung Bik's grandson and this thread showed in search results

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?22887-Leung-Bik

KPM

03-30-2014, 05:17 AM

Hi Keith,

I think Sifu Yung is referring to the baisee as "R" to mean Robert Chu not Hendrik but Hendrik is involved with them somehow.

Well, someone needs to verify that because nowhere in that facebook post was Robert's name mentioned, however Hendrik was mentioned.

KPM

03-30-2014, 05:52 AM

I searched and found this link reference a Leung Man Lok as Leung Bik's grandson and this thread showed in search results

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?22887-Leung-Bik

Ah! Good find! I had forgotten about that! Here's a little tidbit from that thread that I had forgotten as well in reference to that interview in New Martial Hero Magazine that is likely the source for all subsequent mentions of Leung Bik as Yip Man's teacher:

The only evidence we have of this is the Mok Poi-On interview, which at first I thought was conclusive Yip Man did mention it, but now have heard that it was actually a Leung Ting interview in Yip Man's name, and as Leung Ting himself has said, he was very fond of Lee Man (who Wang Kiu maintains came up with the Leung Bik story) and listened to his stories all the time.

That old thread also sums up the problems with William Cheung's version of the Leung Bik story as well.

But its hard to know what to believe at this point! Old stories get repeated so often that they become facts in people's minds.

KPM

03-30-2014, 05:59 AM

For Leung Bik to exist or not exist the knowledge that Yip Man passed to William Cheung exists,

But you seem to be missing the point that things are very unclear in regards to the origin of William Cheung's Wing Chun....how much came from Yip Man?...how much possible came from an as yet unrecognized source (possible Hung Fa Yi connection)?...and how much of it is William Cheung's own design? Did you read through that old thread that you posted the link for? It lines some of this out pretty well. Back then we didn't know much about Hung Fa Yi. If we had, that old thread would have been even more interesting! ;)

Daniel Fong

03-30-2014, 07:39 PM

Well, someone needs to verify that because nowhere in that facebook post was Robert's name mentioned, however Hendrik was mentioned.

R should be Robert Chu definitely. Robert Chu had mentioned that Sifu Wayne Yung and Hendrik Santo are both his SiHings in SCWC and YKWC respectively in his Facebook postings. Also, Hendrik openly requested to baisee to Sifu Wayne Yung's sifu in the facebook, and was accepted until the baisee ceremony completed. However, later on, Hendrik posted public announcements in Facebook and KFO here, that no more relationship dealing with SCWC. Today, what he does with others dealing with the SCWC document betraying SCWC. Too bad... Are they both Qishimiezu (欺師滅祖) ?

Daniel Fong

03-30-2014, 09:16 PM

New facebook posting from Sifu Wayne Yung again.

Why HS creates some discussion groups and inviting people to join and to discuss with them? Then kick all out.

As one discussion group established, people join and he will share what he knows to them. Then he will ask what their view points, and request they express what their lineages are. After a certain period, all people there will be kicking out, and the group belonging to his ONLY. All the knowledge and discussion there becomes his property.

Then a new discussion group will be created in turn and people are welcome to join. He does the same approach to share his knowlege first, and discuss with others, and ask others to express their lineages again. then kicking out all people and the group becomes his private group again.
I oberseved and realized what he did in this way for long time. Why he does that because, in this way, those groups are becoming his private groups only, and he can own the knowlege in the groups.

Don't you observe and realize that ?

Daniel Fong

03-30-2014, 09:19 PM

Is HS really a Wu Lam Lo Shu (Martial Arts community Mouse) (武林老鼠)?!

gumgongsao

03-30-2014, 09:20 PM

And William Cheung's Wing Chun doesn't look like anyone else's Wing Chun except Hung Fa Yi. Any link between the two is still very unclear and no one is talking!

But you seem to be missing the point that things are very unclear in regards to the origin of William Cheung's Wing Chun....how much came from Yip Man?...how much possible came from an as yet unrecognized source (possible Hung Fa Yi connection)?...and how much of it is William Cheung's own design? Did you read through that old thread that you posted the link for? It lines some of this out pretty well. Back then we didn't know much about Hung Fa Yi. If we had, that old thread would have been even more interesting! ;)

Hello KPM, I see that you keep mentioning and questioning the relationship and link between HFY and TWC from your previous posts. I personally have had a total of 23 years experience learning Wing Chun. 11.5 years learning from two different Sifu's from Yip Man lineage and 12 years learning HFYWCK from my Sifu GM Garrett Gee and I hope to give you some insight as to my personal perspective and facts supporting my personal point's of view on the topic.

First, these are my observations: My Sifu GM Garrett Gee has been teaching HFY Wing Chun in America since 1975. I have also personally met and interacted with some people through the years such as Richard Ng and other students learning from Sifu GM Garrett Gee that were from that timeline as facts. Looking at the timeline of articles and documentations I also observed that William Chung's TWC based from Australia was holding his earliest public workshop in New York in 1984. Is HFY and TWC connected? From my observations of these two distinct facts TWC based in Australia, HFY based in America and a difference of 9 years time lapse before TWC came to America, the answer would be no, these two lineages are not connected in this way.

However, people (generally speaking) see the connection from these two lineages. Does HFY and TWC seem much more close and alike in many ways than other Wing Chun lineages? Doesn't all Wing Chun supposed to come from one original source? And if all Wing Chun came from one original source, then why does so many Wing Chun lineages look so alike in certain areas and also look so different? My personal perspective on this is that different students might have different status within one Sifu. Some might be regular students, and others might be within different ranks of BaiSee. Some within BaiSee might be "Yup Mun" and some are "Yup Sut", and might have different levels of understanding within the same teachings or teachings withheld. Also, once anyone's Wing Chun Lineage starts spreading out, and from generation to generation we start to see incorporation of additions and modifications based on personal interpretations and functions to the art. And if you compare "this" Wing Chun lineage to "that" Wing Chun lineage you'll see either digression or progression based on personal cultivation of the art.

However, this being said, we must observe several facts about the history of all Wing Chun lineages to the historical point of origin. From the 1850's and beyond to modern day (today), we can see clearly from many sources of documented facts that there are two separate major transfer's of knowledge based on the widespread of Wing Chun worldwide. Most of such documentation revolves around two major ancestral lines. One of such is William Cheung giving credit back to Yip Man and Yip Man giving credit back to CWS/Leung Bik from the Opera Society WCK. And another is Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen giving credit back to the Hung Gun Boxer Society. But if you look at 2-3 generations before the 1850's going back in history about 1800's prior to the split and separation of these two major influences, you will in no doubt see alot more closer in resemblance of such Wing Chun lineages of the art. If we go even further back 3-4 generations to history prior to the 1730's one cannot argue that all such lineages that draw back to their ancestor's learning the art would be much more similar than this era of modern day. So is HFY and TWC connected? From point of view that all Wing Chun came from one original source, the answer would be YES. However, even in the 1850's you can already draw the conclusion that HFY Ancestral Lineage and TWC Ancestral Lineage or any other Wing Chun lineages are already different due to split into Opera Society WCK and Hung Gun Boxer Society HFYWCK.

Besides myself, another example I can present is Sifu Dale Vits who's a Kung Fu Brother in the WHFYWCKFA. Dale Vits has more than 20 years learning the TWC system and is now currently studying HFYWCK. He has expressed that both systems are beautiful systems but yet is significantly different. From my personal point of view, HFYWCK has a very unique approach in WC expression and application like Heaven, Human, Earth and Time /space /energy format. Which once I have truly experienced it, I can really see the big difference between HFYWCK from Hung Gun boxer society than Opera Society WCK.

People with the good intention and genuine martial artists are always welcome in our HFY Wing Chun Kwoons for research and knowledge exchange from any Wing Chun Lineages. We open our doors and welcome any to visit us for those purposes and in the past 10 years I've witnessed with my own eyes, there were more than one dozen people from the TWC lineage who come from time to time to visit the HFY Wing Chun Kwoon. Some of such individuals from TWC have already gone through the entire TWC systems or have obtained higher level knowledge from TWC. From these TWC people, even though there are many claims that HFY and TWC looks alike, once they have come to witness and experience HFY for themselves, they see a big difference between HFY and TWC teachings ranging from theory, concepts, to principles and formulas to expressions and applications. And only those individuals who have experienced HFY for themselves can really distinguish such differences.

I'd also like to share my personal experiences from learning HFYWCK. In the beginning of learning HFYWCK I also experience the different facets of the art. One may not be able to differentiate the difference while learning purely the movements of the system. This ultimately allows one to think that they may change or modify to reactional responses based on personal interpretations in the beginning of learning the HFY system. However once I have acquired more higher level knowledge and enter into the Hung Fa Yi Multi-Faceted layers of core components of the system, which consists of 3 different realities of Time, Space and Energy. Each variable of such system control checks on the consistency of every parameter of the system which does not allow you to change any part of it. Every component in the art is connected, consistent, and constant throughout the system. In reality, you may not add or subtract nor modify at will because while doing so will violate and create additional distortions in the 3 different realities of Time, Space and Energy. This is my personal view why there are such varying differences even within one single branch or lineage of any Wing Chun System.

Billy Lau

JPinAZ

03-30-2014, 10:10 PM

Good post Billy!

Just to add a little about this HFY/TWC 'link' that been discussed many times here. I also agree that look at the surface, they do share similarities that you don't see in other modern WC lines. So it's fair to say they are closer cousins that other mainstream WC lineages. and understandable to hear people from the outside of these 2 lineages to feel they have a 'link' in some way. And I think Billy did a great job of talking to this. But regardless what some might se on the surface, they are still not the same once you get passed 'how they look'.

Several TWC long time practitioners & Sifus have had the chance to see, feel and experience HFY personally, and all have said the same thing in the end - that they are not the same (Sifu Delroi Flood, Sifu Dale Vits, Anerlich here on the forums, etc). I've had exposure to TWC as well, and while it is a great system that stands on it's own, it is clearly not the same as HFY. Just looking at their forms can tell you this much (if you know what you're looking at), but dig deeper and you'll see their application of theories, concepts and concepts are different and unique to themselves.

Here's a great post of one interaction between 2 HFY & TWC practitioners. Each are long time practitioners of their art as well as long-time posters on this forum, that got a chance to meet and share their individual understandings of each's art:
http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?60047-Forum-meeting-in-SYD&highlight=HFY+TWC+Duende

My thoughts are, people will continue to believe there's some 'secret connection', but I'm willing to just believe GM Cheung's story since simply put - there's valid reason to believe otherwise...

Minghequan

03-31-2014, 12:31 AM

My friend, Sifu Yung made this statement:

I seldom to show up to express my point of view. I am a computer system analyst too, and some minor things cannot be escaped by my observation. Of course more HS doesn't know what really wck is in the Tai Ping period, we can fill up. scwc is split from one long set 108,but the original name is not calling 'Wing Chun'. The name Wing Chun coming out after splitting, relating to Hung Mun to deal with the tai ping traitors. You can refer to the last statement of lim Tau song, then you will find what the real name of wck in Redboat period.is.
I am not going to any political issues, but somehow someones not respect to and betray with SCWC, and represent us to show SCWC related to the public.
I am also a researcher on our history, also with the wck history. Few years ago, it is HS coming to me, and joining me to explore the whole wck history. Also, as you can observe, how high profile he push SCWC, but today, never mention after his public announcement on Facebook and in the Kung Fu Magazine Forum. What is the morality of a Martial Artist ? Any ethics ? I believe it is a good lesson and good example to our followers what the WuDai (武德) is ? They are really childish, how come a full document will be given to the strangers. All they got is just the true description paper I published last year and the Conversation with SCCWM paper five years ago.

I can state that the post made by Hendrik Santo elsewhere on this forum about leaving the world of Martial Arts behind, "Washing his hands with Wing Chun" was done because Hendrik's self-proclaimed "mission was complete!!!"

Sifu Yung has confirmed that HS,'s Siu Nim Tau had not been completed, that HS was trying to take SCWC and recompose his SNT based on his Kuit.

If HS has SNT, why he doesn't he share it and disclose his kuen kuit. More, is his kuen kuit truth?

KPM

03-31-2014, 03:48 AM

Hey JP!

Just to add a little about this HFY/TWC 'link' that been discussed many times here. I also agree that look at the surface, they do share similarities that you don't see in other modern WC lines. So it's fair to say they are closer cousins that other mainstream WC lineages.

And that is exactly the point! TWC looks more like HFY than it does Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK or Yuen Kay Shan WCK, or Yiu Choi WCK, or Wong Shun Leung's WCK, or Augustine Fong's WCK, or....... Should I go on? I'm not saying that HFY = TWC. They are obviously not the same system, yet they are somehow related. How is that if TWC came entirely from Yip Man? If it came entirely from Yip Man, then why does none of the other Wing Chun that people have seen Yip Man perform or teach look anything like TWC? Is it just coincidence that there is such similarity between HFY and TWC?

KPM

03-31-2014, 04:02 AM

Hi Billy!

Thanks for taking the time to type all of that out! But it really doesn't shed much light on the question.

Looking at the timeline of articles and documentations I also observed that William Chung's TWC based from Australia was holding his earliest public workshop in New York in 1984. Is HFY and TWC connected? From my observations of these two distinct facts TWC based in Australia, HFY based in America and a difference of 9 years time lapse before TWC came to America, the answer would be no, these two lineages are not connected in this way.

I do believe that there was such a thing a international flights overseas to various countries in the 70's and 80's.

However, people (generally speaking) see the connection from these two lineages. Does HFY and TWC seem much more close and alike in many ways than other Wing Chun lineages?

Yes, they do. I'm not saying the HYF = TWC, only that they seem to be more similar to each other than either one is to say....Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, Snake Crane WCK, etc. Is that entirely a coincidence?

once anyone's Wing Chun Lineage starts spreading out, and from generation to generation we start to see incorporation of additions and modifications based on personal interpretations and functions to the art. And if you compare "this" Wing Chun lineage to "that" Wing Chun lineage you'll see either digression or progression based on personal cultivation of the art.

You note correctly that from generation to generation with time you see digression and progression. Yet you also seem to be saying that HFY and TWC are only similar because they have the same root origin from over 100 years ago. You can't have it both ways. Wouldn't they have digressed and progressed just as much as Yuen Kay Shan WCK has from HFY? Or Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK has from HFY? Why would TWC be unique and retaining these similarities over 100 years?

From these TWC people, even though there are many claims that HFY and TWC looks alike, once they have come to witness and experience HFY for themselves, they see a big difference between HFY and TWC teachings ranging from theory, concepts, to principles and formulas to expressions and applications. And only those individuals who have experienced HFY for themselves can really distinguish such differences.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the similarities between TWC and HFY are so strong that one has to know each in some depth to realize the significant differences between them. Yet you can't say the same thing about HFY and YKSWCK or HFY and KLPSWCK, can you? Why is that? Aren't they all from the same root art over 100 years ago? Why would TWC and HFY still share such strong similarties and not the others?

One may not be able to differentiate the difference while learning purely the movements of the system.

Really? You are saying they are really that similar? Because I can spot the differences between HFY and Wong Shun Leung's WCK or HFY and Yuen Kay Shan's WCK, or HFY and Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK immediately. And its just coincidence that TWC and HFY are so similar?

Not to take this thread down another rabbit hole that has already been explored in the past. But it just rankles me that people are so into trying to deny the obvious. Now lets get back on track, shall we? Or start a different thread.

KPM

03-31-2014, 04:05 AM

R should be Robert Chu definitely. Robert Chu had mentioned that Sifu Wayne Yung and Hendrik Santo are both his SiHings in SCWC and YKWC respectively in his Facebook postings. Also, Hendrik openly requested to baisee to Sifu Wayne Yung's sifu in the facebook, and was accepted until the baisee ceremony completed. However, later on, Hendrik posted public announcements in Facebook and KFO here, that no more relationship dealing with SCWC. Today, what he does with others dealing with the SCWC document betraying SCWC. Too bad... Are they both Qishimiezu (欺師滅祖) ?

Thanks for the clarification Daniel!

KPM

03-31-2014, 07:50 AM

Back on track!

Hunter said this earlier:
Jui Wan said that in Fatshan Yip Mans wing chun was like everyone else's. However in Hong Kong Yip Man's wing chun was different and much better. So much so that Jui Wan studied under Yip Man. To this point in time every story teller I have heard talking about Yip Man learning advanced things from YKS and YKS really being Leung Bik has ignored the only person that was a wing chun sifu in both Fatshan and Hong Kong and knew Yip and his wing chun in both places. Yip may have trained with YKS but the wing chun that impressed Jui Wan was not YKS wing chun. Jui Wan was clear that whatever Yip was now doing with him was different that what was being done in Fatshan.

This didn't occur to me before, but based on all of the Leung Bik stories, it would have been during Yip Man's teenage years in Hong Kong while he was attending St Stephens that he would have trained with Leung Bik. So it seems to me that any influence on his Wing Chun would have taken place prior to his return to Foshan where he went on to become one of the "three heroes of Wing Chun", and would have trained with Yuen Kay Shan and Yiu Choi, and would have known Jiu Wan. Unless he was hiding his new-found skills from them? If Jui Wan was right and there was a transformation and improvement in Yip Man's Wing Chun skills from his Foshan years to his teaching career in Hong Kong it seems to me it would be the result of his own hard work, exposure to other Wing Chun people, and his own understanding/innovation. If Leung Bik was really such a huge influence, wouldn't it have been apparent right away when he returned home to Foshan after finishing his education at St Stephen's????

Vajramusti

03-31-2014, 08:45 AM

If Leung Bik was really such a huge influence, wouldn't it have been apparent right away when he returned home to Foshan after finishing his education at St Stephen's????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For me anyway-The footwork of Ip Man is so distinctive and different from Chan Wa Shun, YKS/Sum Nun and YC-
it stands on it's own merits and a credit to whoever taught him. I accept him at his word that it was Leung Bik-
revisionist stories not withstanding. Quite a bit of tiresome and misguided and needless efforts to call IM a liar.

BTW- the snake/crane connection - where there is persistent smoke....

Again- the "history" may be muddled.

Hendrik does have copies of scrolls from Emei showing two person wing chun like action.
The key again for me are actual motions rather than the stories.

JPinAZ

03-31-2014, 08:45 AM

Keith,

People will see what they want. I think Billy did a great job of already answering your questions. But to be direct, and no offence meant, it seems your mind is made up already regardless what anyone says. And, if your not going to be objective, nothing anyone says is going to change it. But since you are still asking, maybe I am wrong and you are genuinely interested in understanding where we are coming from. So I'll try one last time to address your questions I feel are relevant and then it's up to you :) Fair enough?

Now first, let me ask you, what do you base your conclusions on? As far as I know, there isn't too much to go on without experience in each or both.
While TWC clearly has a lot of application videos out, HFY does not. To date, while HFY has release many articles, we have only released 1 book, some still photos online and a few videos of our SNT. That isn't really a lot of visual aids to go on to be able to be able to fairly compare anything besides some surface level shapes. Hopefully you base conclusions on more than just static shapes? Again, yes, there are similarities in footwork positions, and some similarities in SNT that aren't seen in other mainstream lineages - that much is obvious. So yeah, since they are both WCK and both come from the same source (as does all WCK) and clearly have a closer relation than other lines, they are going to look alike. But even if we just look at the SNT forms, we can clearly see there are a lot of differences! (if we are being objective of course). Have you seen both forms?

So again, while they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK, they are still distant cousins when compared to each other, whether you see it or not. That is why it was brought up that insiders of both lineages, once they had a chance to gain actual experience of both sides of the coin can see what we have been saying. But since you haven't experienced either AFAIK, it seems you're only looking at the edge of the coin (or only one said at a time), which isn't the whole picture.
Without having any really understanding of concepts/principles/mechanics/strategy/tactics/etc of both arts, how can you say for sure what is what? To be fair, you simply can't. But there are many that have, as we pointed out. And Billy did a wonderful job on touching on many of these. Please reread what he wrote in his post regarding HFY concepts & principle. And others have had the chance to dig deeper than just surface level shapes & footwork of both arts and see what Billy was describing, they have seen that each lineage really does operate under different parameters, technologies and even WCK principles common to all WCK as well, making them each unique onto themselves.

Again, you feel they share visual more similarities if you compare to other Ip Man lineages. No one is denying that, but that's surface level stuff. Your question is why? Well it's obvious that at some point there is a connection to both of these lineages further up the WCK tree than some of the red boat Ip Man lineages, most likely separating before or at the time of 1850's split (more on that in a minute). You brought a good point with TWC/HFY looking different than other Ip Man lineages like KLPS, YKS, etc. so let's look at that. If you compare say just Leung Ting VT and Wong Shun Leung WC, while their SNT looks pretty much the same, they operate VERY differently and look VERY different in application, as well as different understanding of WC principles - and they both had the same teacher! Then look at the various lines of WSL WC out today and compare those, and you'll see more differences in application again! So, while both WSL and LT were Ip Man WC students, why do they look so different if they are from the same teacher? And why after one generation further are they different even further in each new 'lineage'. It's clear there was different teaching by Yip Man, and different understandings by the students. Now, add 100 years, and what will you have between LT VT & WSL WC?

So, with that in mind, how can HFY and TWC look the same to you yet still be so different to those that have actual experience in one of both? The answer is Time.
Clearly they had the same source, no one argues that. All WC has the same source the further back you go. But given enough time, or even just one generation in the example of WSL WC and LT VT, things change. GM WC says that TWC came from Yip Man thru Leung Bik. Since there is no valid alternative that anyone has given as to where TWC came from besides Yip Man (except some stubborn guesses by outsiders that TWC and HFY shared info not too long ago), I'm willing to believe the story that it came from Yip Man. Here is why. You seem to be saying that they are very close 'first' cousins based on what you see. I'm seeing that while they are surely cousins, they are many times removed because of the differences I also am able to see. Just looking at their SNT forms this is very clear! While my LT/WSL example might be applied here, remember, they had the same teacher and their forms are the same. While sharing a few similarities, HFY & TWC SNT froms are NOT the same, and have too many key differences in both sequence, and more importantly technology, to be from the same source any time in the not-so-distant past.

Lets just say William Cheung did learn TWC form Yip Man who learned it from any other Red Boat Sifu one chooses to believe if they don't believe the LB story. And we know HFY traces their lineage not thru the red boats, but mainland Boxer Societies. And these two lines (read boat/boxer societies) split at around 1850. That that would still put about 160 years between HFY and TWC and would make them 4th or 5th cousins - or more! So while they have similarities, that is a simple and easy explanation as to why those that have experienced both can see the very clear differences as well which makes them stand on their own as unique systems to themselves. Take a look at WSL and LT lineages again. A lot of technical differences in application, but at least the forms are mostly identical! Now, take another look at the forms of HFY & TWC, and you'll see they couldn't be from the same generation as soon as the 1970's as you might imply. While having similarities unique outside of Yip Man lineages, the forms are just too different to be from the same teacher in the past 100 years IMO. Just too many differences. And that just forms as one easy example! Looking at the concepts/principles as Billy pointed out and you'll see much more clearly that they have too many differences to be from the same teacher recently.

So, while clearly there is a link, they are still not as close as you may want to believe - whether by choice, inexperience, or both :). They key is the split of 1850's and the time from then til now, not just 30-some-odd years ago. Hopefully this helps.

JPinAZ

03-31-2014, 08:49 AM

If Leung Bik was really such a huge influence, wouldn't it have been apparent right away when he returned home to Foshan after finishing his education at St Stephen's????

Actually, wasn't the story when he went back home? That he was besting all of his old sihings with what he had learned and the all accused him of having 'mixed something else into his WC'? (TWC perhaps?)

For me anyway-The footwork of Ip Man is so distinctive and different from Chan Wa Shun, YKS/Sum Nun and YC-it stands on it's own merits and a credit to whoever taught him. I accept him at his word that it was Leung Bik-
revisionist stories not withstanding. Quite a bit of tiresome and misguided and needless efforts to call IM a liar.

Well said and I agree.

Vajramusti

03-31-2014, 09:52 AM

Actually, wasn't the story when he went back home? That he was besting all of his old sihings with what he had learned and the all accused him of having 'mixed something else into his WC'? (TWC perhaps?)

Well said and I agree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Cheung used what he had heard about there being a Leung Bik and used it to buttress his own TWC. Ok with me if people believe that or whatever they do about "history."
And the same old stories come in regular cycles.

Would it not be more fruitful to discuss what we do and why we do what we do?

KPM

03-31-2014, 11:07 AM

Hey JP!

Thanks for the thoughtful response!

People will see what they want. I think Billy did a great job of already answering your questions. But to be direct, and no offence meant, it seems your mind is made up already regardless what anyone says. And, if your not going to be objective, nothing anyone says is going to change it.

I am trying to be objective. I think there is at least a superficial similarity between HFY and TWC that is stronger than the similiarities between HFY and YKS WCK or TWC and YSK WCK or between HFY and Ku Lo WCK or TWC and Ku Lo WCK, etc. Billy seemed to agree with that. Do you agree? No agenda here. Just a judgement that is as impartial as I can make it.

Now first, let me ask you, what do you base your conclusions on? As far as I know, there isn't too much to go on without experience in each or both.

I had spent some time studying TWC when I attended the "Friendship Seminar" in Dayton Ohio that was kind of informally HFY and Garret Gee's "coming out" to the public. I saw some HFY demo'd and even did some brief Chi Sao with Garret Gee. I've read the book he did with Benny Meng. None of that is to say I have any in-depth knowledge of HFY and I don't claim to. All I am claiming is that I have seen enough and know enough to recognize pretty strong similarities, superficial though they may be. I don't pretend to know the theories and concepts that are used by HFY.

So yeah, since they are both WCK and both come from the same source (as does all WCK) and clearly have a closer relation than other lines, they are going to look alike. But even if we just look at the SNT forms, we can clearly see there are a lot of differences! (if we are being objective of course). Have you seen both forms?

Yes I have. And again, being objective my logic goes like this......there are at least superficial similarities between HFY and TWC that are stronger than the similarities between them and other "Red Boat" WCK. If they simply split from a common ancestor over 100 years ago, why would they not have diverged as much as Yuen Kay Shan WCK has from HFY? Or Ku Lo WCK from HFY? How did TWC maintain such similarities to HFY all this time when other lineages did not? Logically, it seems unlikely that their shared source dates back over 100 years.

So again, while they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK, they are still distant cousins when compared to each other, whether you see it or not.

Whether they are "distant cousins when compared to each other" or not is irrelevant to this discussion. The important part is the fact that "they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK", and I would add "any of the Red Boat lineage WCK." In other words, there is a connection between TWC and HFY that is stronger than HFY's connection to Ip Man WCK and the others. You have explained that connection as saying that they came from the same source over 100 years ago. But Ip Man WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, and the others did as well. So why is the connection stronger for TWC? Why is the similarity stronger between HFY and TWC?

Without having any really understanding of concepts/principles/mechanics/strategy/tactics/etc of both arts, how can you say for sure what is what? To be fair, you simply can't.

I don't have to have in-depth knowledge of HFY's inner workings to recognize superficial similarities, and to realize that these superficial similarities are stronger than those that I see between HFY and other Red Boat WCK lineages. Its not rocket science after all.

Again, you feel they share visual more similarities if you compare to other Ip Man lineages. No one is denying that, but that's surface level stuff. Your question is why? Well it's obvious that at some point there is a connection to both of these lineages further up the WCK tree than some of the red boat Ip Man lineages,

Well, this is where I would point out that you seem to be veering off the path of objective logic. If the connection is "further up the WCK tree" (meaning further away in time and generations) than some of the other Red Boat lineages, wouldn't that make them less similar due to the progression and digression with time that Billy talked about? How does a more distant connection make them more similar than two lineages with a more recent connection?

On the other hand, if you are arguing that TWC and HFY are similar because they are both descendants of a common source that is NOT shared with the known Red Boat lineages, however distant that common source may be.....THAT I can agree with, and THAT is logical!

If you compare say just Leung Ting VT and Wong Shun Leung WC, while their SNT looks pretty much the same, they operate VERY differently and look VERY different in application, as well as different understanding of WC principles - and they both had the same teacher!

Great point! Look how different they have become in just one generation! How in the heck would HFY and TWC maintain even the superficial similarities they share that the other Red Boat lineages don't over 100 years and multiple generations of evolution and divergence?! It boggles the mind doesn't it! ;)

Clearly they had the same source, no one argues that. All WC has the same source the further back you go. But given enough time, or even just one generation in the example of WSL WC and LT VT, things change.

I agree. But you are proposing that the obvious similarities between HFY and TWC have NOT changed over time and generations, yet these similarities HAVE changed between HFY or TWC and all of the other Red Boat WCK lineages over the same span of time. How do you explain that?

GM WC says that TWC came from Yip Man thru Leung Bik. Since there is no valid alternative that anyone has given as to where TWC came from besides Yip Man (except some stubborn guesses by outsiders that TWC and HFY shared info not too long ago), I'm willing to believe the story that it came from Yip Man.

Again, using objective logic: TWC and HFY are similar and therefore share a common root. The are more similar to each other than they are to other Red Boat lineages, therefore that common root must be different than the others, or more recent. So if we are to believe William Cheung's story, then Leung Bik taught Yip Man a version of WCK that was much different than what Leung Jan taught in Foshan or in Ku Lo Village. Where did Leung Bik learn it? All we have done is push back the "what the hell?" question one generation. We still don't know the link. But the problem with this is the related questions already discussed.

Lets just say William Cheung did learn TWC form Yip Man who learned it from any other Red Boat Sifu one chooses to believe if they don't believe the LB story. And we know HFY traces their lineage not thru the red boats, but mainland Boxer Societies. And these two lines (read boat/boxer societies) split at around 1850. That that would still put about 160 years between HFY and TWC and would make them 4th or 5th cousins - or more!

Exactly! So how in the world would they maintain even such superficial similarities over so much time and so many generations? But likewise, by what you just stated HFY and Yuen Kay Shan WCK would also be 4th or 5th cousins or more! So why do they NOT share these superficial similarities? Therefore I find it logically implausible that the link between HFY and TWC dates back to the pre-Red Boat era. That would require believing that TWC and HFY were able to maintain similarities that HFY and Yuen Kay Shan WCK did not. I think that is objective and logical reasoning. Is it not?

KPM

03-31-2014, 11:15 AM

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

. Quite a bit of tiresome and misguided and needless efforts to call IM a liar.

.

I'll refer back to this comment from that old thread:

The only evidence we have of this is the Mok Poi-On interview, which at first I thought was conclusive Yip Man did mention it, but now have heard that it was actually a Leung Ting interview in Yip Man's name, and as Leung Ting himself has said, he was very fond of Lee Man (who Wang Kiu maintains came up with the Leung Bik story) and listened to his stories all the time.

KPM

03-31-2014, 11:18 AM

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

Would it not be more fruitful to discuss what we do and why we do what we do?

Yeah, well, I tried that. Hendrik ignored me. Some people agreed with me and seemed appreciative of what I had to say. You seemed to think that it was all bogus because you're convinced Leung Jan was just futzing around with some farm boys in his final years and not teaching any serious WCK. :rolleyes: So you didn't bother to actually try and discuss it at all!

So you go right ahead and start a thread on Chi Sao or something.

KPM

03-31-2014, 11:20 AM

Vajramusti

03-31-2014, 11:39 AM

Yeah, well, I tried that. Hendrik ignored me. Some people agreed with me and seemed appreciative of what I had to say. You seemed to think that it was all bogus because you're convinced Leung Jan was just futzing around with some farm boys in his final years and not teaching any serious WCK. :rolleyes: So you didn't bother to actually try and discuss it at all!

So you go right ahead and start a thread on Chi Sao or something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Futzing with farm boys etc? Misplaced attempt at sarcasm. I never said anything like that.
You are making up a narrative on what I said ex nihilo.
Leung Jan was at the end of his life when he moved to Gu Lao and got some young people started with some san sik drills.
The rest is evolution by the descendants. That is what it looks like to me.
It does NOT mean that Leung Jan was able to transmit his whole art in his last years.
If someone does Gu Lao wing chun- no problem. Has nothing to do with Ip Man's learning.

KPM

03-31-2014, 12:31 PM

VT Andy

03-31-2014, 01:13 PM

Hi Keith,

A friend of mine on FB confirm that the “R” in Sifu Yung’s comment is definitely Robert Chu that was also referred to as one with “no ethics or sense” but he along with Hendrik and Sergio all abusing and misusing the knowledge from SCWC. Anyone here know how long Robert Chu is student of Sifu Yung? How much did he learn and is he recognized to speak for SCWC? It would appear not much and all these 3 guys only created more trouble and more mess. It is obvious Hendrik humiliate himself and burned bridges with SCWC and even though we all can see he LOVES to talk so much but he cannot speak as authority at all and did not even apologize or show respect. That is bad.

I trained with some of my friends in the NY Ving Tsun community over the weekend. I asked them about what they think on this stuff. One thing is no one care about Robert Chu but they also say nothing to do with emotion either but they see consistent behoavior and actions repeating again as before since 1980s. I asked them to clarify for me.

They really know about Robert Chu since the old days and have very low opinion about his training and his character. Lee Moy Shan and Moy Yat both said his skill was poor and incomplete need to start over to learn right. Many said Robert was too proud of himself to start over in the GSSA. Lee Moy Shan refused to allow Robert to use his name at all and so Robert never complete his training with them. Now they hear and see the same thing happening with Sifu Yung and Robert Chu. History is repeating itself again they tell me as they see. Incomplete training but big opinion and willing to do unethical actions based on the surface things, unfortunately it only show this guy is not responsible to trust with real knowledge.

I really starting to believe this new Leung Bik theory is just distraction not real research by him. I think this has to be all connected because hegoes beyond stating his opinion to lay false claim to attack Yip Man saying he made it all up. He attack William Cheung saying he made it all up, but it is Robert who never finish his own training and he has to be the one spreading rumor after rumor making every rumor up without knowing his stuff only scratching the surface. I don't see he can be an authority to speak about other groups really. That is not real research at all not even scientific just conjecture. Could I be wrong? The one thing is my friends are stating facts not opinion so I cannot ignore and have to consider. I think Robert is the one making these things up.

Andy

Vajramusti

03-31-2014, 01:19 PM

got some young people started with some san sik drills.
The rest is evolution by the descendants. That is what it looks like to me.
It does NOT mean that Leung Jan was able to transmit his whole art in his last years.

Sounds like you think he was just "futzing around" to me!

If someone does Gu Lao wing chun- no problem. Has nothing to do with Ip Man's learning

I thought you weren't interested in any discussions about Ip Man's learning!---------------------------

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

Futzing etc- your choice of words- not mine,
Leung Jan was a greatly respected master. Natural for some people to learn something about his art.
Not enough time for the retired master to teach the whole system in the last couple of years or so before his death.
Ip Man's teaching just before his death was also limited

Ip Man's learning was in his hands and his hands on teaching to those few who spent quality and lengthy learning time with him. I dont expect to learn much about
IM's learning from the average KFO-er... but I have met some of IM's top students, rolled with some and listen to what Ho Kam Ming, WSL, TST
have said about IM's wing chun and make my own informed judgements. KFO just keeps me abreast mostly about sometimes useful,
often uninformed, sometimes self advancing
but often irrelevant pub level chit chat about wing chun.

KPM

03-31-2014, 03:41 PM

Hi Andy!

A friend of mine on FB confirm that the “R” in Sifu Yung’s comment is definitely Robert Chu

Thanks for the clarification!

It is obvious Hendrik humiliate himself and burned bridges with SCWC and even though we all can see he LOVES to talk so much but he cannot speak as authority at all and did not even apologize or show respect. That is bad.

Hendrik seems to have certainly taken a beating on this thread! And he has disappeared rather than stick around and defend himself. But he'll be back!

Lee Moy Shan and Moy Yat both said his skill was poor and incomplete need to start over to learn right.

That would have been a long time ago! Hopefully we've all improved with time! And Robert did start over...with Hawkins Cheung.

I really starting to believe this new Leung Bik theory is just distraction not real research by him. I think this has to be all connected because hegoes beyond stating his opinion to lay false claim to attack Yip Man saying he made it all up. He attack William Cheung saying he made it all up,

Don't lay this all on Robert. He certainly isn't the only one that is or has in the past questioned the Leung Bik story and the William Cheung story!

I don't see he can be an authority to speak about other groups really. That is not real research at all not even scientific just conjecture. Could I be wrong?

I might have missed it, but where has Robert spoken as an authority on SCWC? It was Hendrik that translated and correlated the writings of Yik Kam and Snake Crane lineages.

The one thing is my friends are stating facts not opinion so I cannot ignore and have to consider. I think Robert is the one making these things up.

Saying that Robert is making things up is certainly an opinion!

hunt1

03-31-2014, 04:53 PM

By Hunters account, not according to Jui Wan!

I have never said anything of the kind anywhere! Never have I ever talked about what Ip Man did when he returned from St. Stephans. I hope you are confusing me with some one else.

JPinAZ

03-31-2014, 05:09 PM

Keith,
This is realy starting to drag on down a road to nowhere. I suggest you reread my last post, and instead of snipping what I say out of context to reply, look at each paragraph individually (vs, nit picked segments which pulls things out of contect) and then the post as a whole. You may get a different idea of what I am saying here because a lot of what you are saying here either mimcs what I have been trying to say, or is ignoring what I have been saying to further what loks to be some strange witch hunt of yours against one or both of these great arts.

I'll make a few quick comments and then I'm bowing out.

I am trying to be objective. I think there is at least a superficial similarity between HFY and TWC that is stronger than the similiarities between HFY and YKS WCK or TWC and YSK WCK or between HFY and Ku Lo WCK or TWC and Ku Lo WCK, etc. Billy seemed to agree with that. Do you agree?

Of course I agree. It makes me wonder if you really read my last post at all...

Yes I have. And again, being objective my logic goes like this......there are at least superficial similarities between HFY and TWC that are stronger than the similarities between them and other "Red Boat" WCK. If they simply split from a common ancestor over 100 years ago, why would they not have diverged as much as Yuen Kay Shan WCK has from HFY? Or Ku Lo WCK from HFY? How did TWC maintain such similarities to HFY all this time when other lineages did not? Logically, it seems unlikely that their shared source dates back over 100 years.

Simple, same idea of WSL & LT comparison - different teachings methods + different students = different outcomes.
LJ taught several different ways, and then so did his students, and so did YM and so did his students. It's easy to see, just pull up youtube, you'll see all sorts of 'styles' of WC out there. LJ clearly taught several different ways depending on a variety of factors thruout his lifetime. It's perfectly logical that WC's 'TWC' was just another 'version' he taught LB.

On the other hand, if you are arguing that TWC and HFY are similar because they are both descendants of a common source that is NOT shared with the known Red Boat lineages, however distant that common source may be.....THAT I can agree with, and THAT is logical!

That's not what I said.
All WC comes from the same source and everything looked pretty much the same if we looked back before the 1850 split. Like all WCK, we see similarities between the 2 in question, but also differences, because after 1850 one version went thru the red boats (LJ/LB), and one version thru the Boxer Societies. And the 160 years in between is why we see 2 separate arts today that still share some common characteristics (as does all WCK - some more some less).
What I don't understand is why it's as big of a deal as you're making it out to be.

GM WC says that TWC came from Yip Man thru Leung Bik. Since there is no valid alternative that anyone has given as to where TWC came from besides Yip Man (except some stubborn guesses by outsiders that TWC and HFY shared info not too long ago), I'm willing to believe the story that it came from Yip Man.

Again, using objective logic: TWC and HFY are similar and therefore share a common root. The are more similar to each other than they are to other Red Boat lineages, therefore that common root must be different than the others, or more recent. So if we are to believe William Cheung's story, then Leung Bik taught Yip Man a version of WCK that was much different than what Leung Jan taught in Foshan or in Ku Lo Village. Where did Leung Bik learn it?

Simple answer - his father. Who has taught a multitude of different ways thru his life, none of which look exactly or sometimes even close to the other. Why couldn't today's TWC simply have come down the red boats thru LJ and just be another 'version' he taught his sons?

In the end of the day, what I don't understand is why any of this matters to you so much anyway since you clearly aren't interested in studying either art. And the fact that you went to workshops for both yet haven't wanted to study either further yet still are fighting this strange crusade tells me you aren't really interested in 'answers' or learning anything. No offense mean't, but you come off as only interested in continuing some unprovable gossip and calling a lot of people liars for no apparent reason. To be honest, I gave this a lot more attention that I should have and am not interseted in going down this road further.
Thanks & so long!

KPM

03-31-2014, 05:21 PM

I have never said anything of the kind anywhere! Never have I ever talked about what Ip Man did when he returned from St. Stephans. I hope you are confusing me with some one else.

Hold on Hunter, didn't you say this way back in post #3 of this thread?

Jui Wan knew YKS and his wing chun. Jui Wan was already a wing chun Sifu in his own right when he left Fatshan for Hong Kong. Jui Wan is the only credible source that knew and trained with Yip Man, Yui Choi, YKS and the other wing chun people in Fatshan.

Jui Wan said that in Fatshan Yip Mans wing chun was like everyone else's. However in Hong Kong Yip Man's wing chun was different and much better. So much so that Jui Wan studied under Yip Man. To this point in time every story teller I have heard talking about Yip Man learning advanced things from YKS and YKS really being Leung Bik has ignored the only person that was a wing chun sifu in both Fatshan and Hong Kong and knew Yip and his wing chun in both places. Yip may have trained with YKS but the wing chun that impressed Jui Wan was not YKS wing chun. Jui Wan was clear that whatever Yip was now doing with him was different that what was being done in Fatshan.

Am I missing something? You said that Jiu Wan knew and trained with Yip Man, Yiu Choi, and YKS in Fatshan and that he noted that Yip Man's Wing Chun was like everyone else's. But in Hong Kong Yip Man's Wing Chun was better. You did say that didn't you? Doesn't it follow then that if Yip Man had studied with Leung Bik while at St. Stephen's and that Leung Bik's influence was the big difference, that difference would have been noticeable when he returned to Fatshan? Isn't that a logical conclusion from Jiu Wan's testimony? I am giving Jiu Wan's word its just due and now you are denying it? Where have I misrepresented what you said?

And wouldn't Jiu Wan's testimony of Yip Man's Wing Chun being no different that YKS's and YC's in Foshan disprove JP's comment:
Actually, wasn't the story when he went back home? That he was besting all of his old sihings with what he had learned and the all accused him of having 'mixed something else into his WC'?

So again, where have I misrepresented you?

hunt1

03-31-2014, 05:49 PM

Hold on Hunter, didn't you say this way back in post #3 of this thread?

Jui Wan knew YKS and his wing chun. Jui Wan was already a wing chun Sifu in his own right when he left Fatshan for Hong Kong. Jui Wan is the only credible source that knew and trained with Yip Man, Yui Choi, YKS and the other wing chun people in Fatshan.

Jui Wan said that in Fatshan Yip Mans wing chun was like everyone else's. However in Hong Kong Yip Man's wing chun was different and much better. So much so that Jui Wan studied under Yip Man. To this point in time every story teller I have heard talking about Yip Man learning advanced things from YKS and YKS really being Leung Bik has ignored the only person that was a wing chun sifu in both Fatshan and Hong Kong and knew Yip and his wing chun in both places. Yip may have trained with YKS but the wing chun that impressed Jui Wan was not YKS wing chun. Jui Wan was clear that whatever Yip was now doing with him was different that what was being done in Fatshan.

Am I missing something? You said that Jiu Wan knew and trained with Yip Man, Yiu Choi, and YKS in Fatshan and that he noted that Yip Man's Wing Chun was like everyone else's. But in Hong Kong Yip Man's Wing Chun was better. You did say that didn't you? Doesn't it follow then that if Yip Man had studied with Leung Bik while at St. Stephen's and that Leung Bik's influence was the big difference, that difference would have been noticeable when he returned to Fatshan? Isn't that a logical conclusion from Jiu Wan's testimony? I am giving Jiu Wan's word its just due and now you are denying it? Where have I misrepresented what you said?

And wouldn't Jiu Wan's testimony of Yip Man's Wing Chun being no different that YKS's and YC's in Foshan disprove JP's comment:
Actually, wasn't the story when he went back home? That he was besting all of his old sihings with what he had learned and the all accused him of having 'mixed something else into his WC'?

So again, where have I misrepresented you?

Ok I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying I said Yip Man returned from from st. Stephans and beat everyone.

KPM

03-31-2014, 06:02 PM

JP, I didn't intend this to go down the road to nowhere either. You and Billy chose to take it there. Look, I have nothing to prove, no vendetta, no agenda. I'm simply curious and interested in history. Please reread my responses. I didn't just selectively "snip" away. I was trying to show a certain logic that you seem to either have missed or for some reason are denying. Like I said before it kind of rankles with me when people on both the HFY and TWC side of things want to keep denying what seems fairly obvious to me. And I don't think I'm the only one. That's the only reason I chose to continue these discussions.

So let me make one more attempt to lay things out in a logical fashion. If anyone sees a flaw in my logic, please chime in.

1. TWC and HFY share many superficial similarities that they do NOT share with Yip Man WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK, and other Red Boat lineages. Anyone with a good background in Wing Chun can spot this. JP and Billy have both admitted to this.

2. All WCK share a common origin that pre-dates both the Red Boat era and the Hung societies. They come from the same root art. But with time and generations all lineages tend to evolve and change and diverge to an extent.

3. Yuen Kay Shan WCK and Ku Lo WCK would be just as many generations removed from that original ancestral WCK as HFY and TWC are. YKSWCK and KLWCK share superficial similarities just as HFY and TWC do. They have differences as well because of this divergent evolution, but they have similarities that can be attributed to their origins on the Red Boats. Likewise HFY and TWC have differences, but they also have similarities that can be attributed to their origins within the Hung societies. This is seen by the fact that HFY and TWC are more similar to each other than they are to either YKSWCK or KLWCK, and likewise YKSWCK and KLWCK are more similar to each other than they are to either HFY or TWC. Can everyone agree on that?

4. Therefore, it just makes logical sense that the connection between HFY and TWC has to be more recent than that original ancestral form of WCK. The argument that JP and Billy have used that TWC and HFY are superficially similar only because they share a common origin from that ancestral form of WCK just doesn't hold up. The logical conclusion is that HFY and TWC both have an origin of some sort from the Hung societies which makes them recognizably different than those lineages that came from the Red Boats.

5. So far no one can say what that shared origin between TWC and HFY may be. But there is something nonetheless, and to try and say there isn't and that they are only similar because they both come from that original ancestral Wing Chun is just denying the obvious. Is that so hard to follow?

In the end of the day, what I don't understand is why any of this matters to you so much anyway since you clearly aren't interested in studying either art.

Like I said, it matters to me because I am curious by nature, I am somewhat of a Wing Chun history buff, and it annoys me when people are trying to explain away the obvious.

And the fact that you went to workshops for both yet haven't wanted to study either further yet still are fighting this strange crusade

Its no crusade. I made a simple statement on this thread and Billy and yourself felt the need to go into this long explanation. I've only been pointing out where your explanations don't make logical sense.

tells me you aren't really interested in 'answers' or learning anything. No offense mean't, but you come off as only interested in continuing some unprovable gossip and calling a lot of people liars for no apparent reason.

Tell me where I have continued any "unprovable gossip" or called anyone a liar in my explanation above and my original responses to both you and Billy.

chunner

03-31-2014, 08:00 PM

no comment on the Robert stuff since I don't know about any of that, but regarding the current issue here with SCWC.

The question that needs to be answered is: did Hendrik or anyone publish any material that was not supposed to be published?

It seems to me all of the info Hendrik, Sergio are talking about is straight from the ebook. Anybody can read it, anybody can see the kuit, anybody can put their own translation of the kuit out there. So what did they exactly "steal"?

Hi Keith,

A friend of mine on FB confirm that the “R” in Sifu Yung’s comment is definitely Robert Chu that was also referred to as one with “no ethics or sense” but he along with Hendrik and Sergio all abusing and misusing the knowledge from SCWC. Anyone here know how long Robert Chu is student of Sifu Yung? How much did he learn and is he recognized to speak for SCWC? It would appear not much and all these 3 guys only created more trouble and more mess. It is obvious Hendrik humiliate himself and burned bridges with SCWC and even though we all can see he LOVES to talk so much but he cannot speak as authority at all and did not even apologize or show respect. That is bad.

I trained with some of my friends in the NY Ving Tsun community over the weekend. I asked them about what they think on this stuff. One thing is no one care about Robert Chu but they also say nothing to do with emotion either but they see consistent behoavior and actions repeating again as before since 1980s. I asked them to clarify for me.

They really know about Robert Chu since the old days and have very low opinion about his training and his character. Lee Moy Shan and Moy Yat both said his skill was poor and incomplete need to start over to learn right. Many said Robert was too proud of himself to start over in the GSSA. Lee Moy Shan refused to allow Robert to use his name at all and so Robert never complete his training with them. Now they hear and see the same thing happening with Sifu Yung and Robert Chu. History is repeating itself again they tell me as they see. Incomplete training but big opinion and willing to do unethical actions based on the surface things, unfortunately it only show this guy is not responsible to trust with real knowledge.

I really starting to believe this new Leung Bik theory is just distraction not real research by him. I think this has to be all connected because hegoes beyond stating his opinion to lay false claim to attack Yip Man saying he made it all up. He attack William Cheung saying he made it all up, but it is Robert who never finish his own training and he has to be the one spreading rumor after rumor making every rumor up without knowing his stuff only scratching the surface. I don't see he can be an authority to speak about other groups really. That is not real research at all not even scientific just conjecture. Could I be wrong? The one thing is my friends are stating facts not opinion so I cannot ignore and have to consider. I think Robert is the one making these things up.

Andy

kentchang

03-31-2014, 10:08 PM

kentchang

03-31-2014, 10:20 PM

Savi

04-01-2014, 12:05 AM

KPM it has been a long time since I have chatted with you, and old pesky rumors have apparently come to surface again of this Wing Chun and that Wing Chun having these similarities and those differences from this source and that source are back again, and it looks to be by YOUR hand this time, yet you are firing off accusing my kung fu brothers for it???
JP, I didn't intend this to go down the road to nowhere either. You and Billy chose to take it there. Look, I have nothing to prove, no vendetta, no agenda. I'm simply curious and interested in history. Please reread my responses. I didn't just selectively "snip" away. I was trying to show a certain logic that you seem to either have missed or for some reason are denying. Like I said before it kind of rankles with me when people on both the HFY and TWC side of things want to keep denying what seems fairly obvious to me. And I don't think I'm the only one. That's the only reason I chose to continue these discussions.You are either absent minded or full of SH!t. Stop the spin right there. Here is a reminder from your own post.
#1. And William Cheung's Wing Chun doesn't look like anyone else's Wing Chun except Hung Fa Yi. Any link between the two is still very unclear and no one is talking!

#2. But you seem to be missing the point that things are very unclear in regards to the origin of William Cheung's Wing Chun....how much came from Yip Man?...how much possible came from an as yet unrecognized source (possible Hung Fa Yi connection)?...and how much of it is William Cheung's own design? Did you read through that old thread that you posted the link for? It lines some of this out pretty well. Back then we didn't know much about Hung Fa Yi. If we had, that old thread would have been even more interesting! ;) Now WHO brought TWC and HFY into this scrap dialog? Billy Lau, Jonathan, or YOU?

Sifu Billy Lau was RESPONDING to your mentions of this so don’t think you can pull a fast one here. I have only met Sifu Billy Lau on a few occasions but he was very considerate to share his background experience and knowledge and politely contribute his observations particularly on the content of this thread that you laid out. Rather than extend the same courtesy, you chop it up glossing over more than half of Sifu Billy’s post and ignoring the rest. Political cherry-picking?

Sifu Billy’s point about things being related, both in similarities and differences, is spot on. I believe this content deserves a lot more consideration when genuinely studying the history of Wing Chun.
However, people (generally speaking) see the connection from these two lineages. Does HFY and TWC seem much more close and alike in many ways than other Wing Chun lineages? Doesn't all Wing Chun supposed to come from one original source? And if all Wing Chun came from one original source, then why does so many Wing Chun lineages look so alike in certain areas and also look so different? My personal perspective on this is that different students might have different status within one Sifu. Some might be regular students, and others might be within different ranks of BaiSee. Some within BaiSee might be "Yup Mun" and some are "Yup Sut", and might have different levels of understanding within the same teachings or teachings withheld. Also, once anyone's Wing Chun Lineage starts spreading out, and from generation to generation we start to see incorporation of additions and modifications based on personal interpretations and functions to the art. And if you compare "this" Wing Chun lineage to "that" Wing Chun lineage you'll see either digression or progression based on personal cultivation of the art.

However, this being said, we must observe several facts about the history of all Wing Chun lineages to the historical point of origin. From the 1850's and beyond to modern day (today), we can see clearly from many sources of documented facts that there are two separate major transfers of knowledge based on the widespread of Wing Chun worldwide. Most of such documentation revolves around two major ancestral lines. One of such is William Cheung giving credit back to Yip Man and Yip Man giving credit back to CWS/Leung Bik from the Opera Society WCK. And another is Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen giving credit back to the Hung Gun Boxer Society. But if you look at 2-3 generations before the 1850's going back in history about 1800's prior to the split and separation of these two major influences, you will in no doubt see a lot more closer in resemblance of such Wing Chun lineages of the art. If we go even further back 3-4 generations to history prior to the 1730's one cannot argue that all such lineages that draw back to their ancestor's learning the art would be much more similar than this era of modern day. So is HFY and TWC connected? From point of view that all Wing Chun came from one original source, the answer would be YES. However, even in the 1850's you can already draw the conclusion that HFY Ancestral Lineage and TWC Ancestral Lineage or any other Wing Chun lineages are already different due to split into Opera Society WCK and Hung Gun Boxer Society HFYWCK. Great points to think about all around within this content. Wing Chun must logically come from one source. That means with each branch we look at we must accept that we are all cousins, first, second, third cousins, whatever… whether we come from the Red Boat Opera or the Hung Gun Boxers or any other group. Prior to or after 1850s? What is the big deal how similar or different each one is? So some look more similar to others, that’s just outward appearances. This cousin looks more like that cousin. Yay. Everyone has an opinion and different eyes to see different things. Good.
People with the good intention and genuine martial artists are always welcome in our HFY Wing Chun Kwoons for research and knowledge exchange from any Wing Chun Lineages. We open our doors and welcome any to visit us for those purposes and in the past 10 years I've witnessed with my own eyes, there were more than one dozen people from the TWC lineage who come from time to time to visit the HFY Wing Chun Kwoon. Some of such individuals from TWC have already gone through the entire TWC systems or have obtained higher level knowledge from TWC.

From these TWC people, even though there are many claims that HFY and TWC looks alike, once they have come to witness and experience HFY for themselves, they see a big difference between HFY and TWC teachings ranging from theory, concepts, to principles and formulas to expressions and applications. And only those individuals who have experienced HFY for themselves can really distinguish such differences.

I'd also like to share my personal experiences from learning HFYWCK. In the beginning of learning HFYWCK I also experience the different facets of the art. One may not be able to differentiate the difference while learning purely the movements of the system. This ultimately allows one to think that they may change or modify to reactional responses based on personal interpretations in the beginning of learning the HFY system. However once I have acquired more higher level knowledge and enter into the Hung Fa Yi Multi-Faceted layers of core components of the system, which consists of 3 different realities of Time, Space and Energy. Each variable of such system control checks on the consistency of every parameter of the system which does not allow you to change any part of it. Every component in the art is connected, consistent, and constant throughout the system. In reality, you may not add or subtract nor modify at will because while doing so will violate and create additional distortions in the 3 different realities of Time, Space and Energy. This is my personal view why there are such varying differences even within one single branch or lineage of any Wing Chun System.KPM, you see the facts he shared here? Do you see what he is actually saying because your initial reply does not match up at all. To me, it looks like you did not connect the last paragraph to the one before which immediately explained his statements further. You are not thoroughly versed in nor studying HFY or TWC, yet you passed off your observations as evenly weighted/equally merited as others of both greater knowledge and experience in the subject matter and claiming you are not playing politics? Your surface level observations = Their deeper layer observations? Who the heck are you trying to kid? Think you really know enough and have experienced enough first hand to make an educated assessment as those actually studying these arts?

I think it is a funny thing when someone who doesn't know much about a particular something while pushing forward some uninformed statement as some big deal without complete knowledge and enough experience. That is a political booby trap. You say you “have nothing to prove, no vendetta, no agenda.”, but here you are trying to prove/disprove a theory - which is your agenda - and you are now caught playing politics at the same time. There’s a phrase for that… Regardless, we all have our own opinions and beliefs and experiences. This whole thread really has no actual point.

Ng Wu Sei Hoi Wa Yat Ga (“In all directions we are one family”) We should not forget it! I’m all for people discussing whatever they want on technical and ideological comparisons because for the vast majority it comes down to what they can do with the art. Some are fascinated by those things. Beyond that, it’s either genuine research from genuine folk, dinner table chatter that doesn’t change anything in the end, or politically driven agendas. So be it and be honest – let each one stand on its own merits and accept the respect and honor each gives to their sources. End of story.

Daniel Fong

04-01-2014, 02:30 AM

When and where did Robert Chu learn his YKWC from Hendrik's Sifu?

Same interesting question on Robert Chu and Hendrik Santo, when and where did they learn their SCWC from Sifu Wayne Yung or his sifu?

Never heard about baisee through Facebook, and Baisee should be serious. Will Hendrik respect SCWCM ? Without doing any baisee ceremony, and in high key to make public announcement to leave SCWC. Is it suitable to do? Too bad!!! Hendrik is always proud on his wck research and knowledge. I heard Robert baisee in last October,2013 to SCWCM, and his sifu, after having a cup of tea, just show him SCWC slt only. How long Robert staying with his sifu ? How much SCWC he learn from his sifu ?

Robert claimed himself reading SCWC secret document. Did his baisee just for the document ? If it is, really sick on him. Today, both these guys betrayed SCWC, and going to Sifu Sergio. There should be a big deal there!!!

KPM

04-01-2014, 04:18 AM

Hey Savi!

Long time no hear! :)

KPM it has been a long time since I have chatted with you, and old pesky rumors have apparently come to surface again of this Wing Chun and that Wing Chun having these similarities and those differences from this source and that source are back again,

What "rumors" are you talking about? Billy and JP both admitted to the strong similarities between HFY and TWC. Others see them plain as day. So what "rumors" are you talking about?

Sifu Billy Lau was RESPONDING to your mentions of this so don’t think you can pull a fast one here.

A "fast one"? Let me say AGAIN that it really rankles me when people from either the HFY side or TWC side keep trying to deny and explain away what seems pretty obvious to most other people. And now we have SAVI resurfacing to do same thing!

, you chop it up glossing over more than half of Sifu Billy’s post and ignoring the rest. Political cherry-picking?

I simply pointed out where his apologetics made no logical sense. Sorry if that seems "political" to you. I assure you I have no "political" interest in this.

Sifu Billy’s point about things being related, both in similarities and differences, is spot on.

Then why don't you actually go back to my last post and tell me where my logic is flawed? And just for the record here for those reading along....it is the HFY guys that are continuing to take this down the "road to nowhere", because Savi's post has contributed absolutely nothing to this discussion other than require me to restate my logical comments.

Wing Chun must logically come from one source. That means with each branch we look at we must accept that we are all cousins, first, second, third cousins, whatever… whether we come from the Red Boat Opera or the Hung Gun Boxers or any other group. Prior to or after 1850s? What is the big deal how similar or different each one is? So some look more similar to others, that’s just outward appearances. This cousin looks more like that cousin. Yay. Everyone has an opinion and different eyes to see different things.

Are you guys just dense or what? Difference and similarities speak to the relationship between things. If you have one group of things that are more similar to each other than another group of things, then that implies that they are more closely related to each other than to the other group of things. Out of, shall we say 6 known lineages of Wing Chun (I know there are more), if 4 of them bear a strong resemblance to each, and the other 2 bear a strong resemblance to each other, logically it seems that the group of 4 are more closely related to each other and the group of 2 are more closely related to each other than either group is related to the other. Do I need to spell it out in a mathematical forumla to make it clear?

Good.KPM, you see the facts he shared here? Do you see what he is actually saying because your initial reply does not match up at all. To me, it looks like you did not connect the last paragraph to the one before which immediately explained his statements further.

To me it sounds like you can't follow basic rules of logic.

Here is the bottom-line:
1. I made a comment that:
a. William Cheung's Wing Chun doesn't look like anyone else's Wing Chun except Hung Fa Yi. Any link between the two is still very unclear and no one is talking!

b. Things are still very unclear in regards to the origin of William Cheung's Wing Chun....how much came from Yip Man?...how much possible came from an as yet unrecognized source (possible Hung Fa Yi connection)?...and how much of it is William Cheung's own design?

I still stand by those statements. Those aren't rumors. Those are facts.

2. Billy felt the need to respond to this and say that TWC and HFY are only similar because they share the same root origin that goes back over 100 years. JP chimed in to support this idea.

3. I pointed out the faulty logic in this reasoning because if we go by that, TWC and HFY should be no more similar to each other than they are to Yuen Kay Shan WCK or Ku Lo WCK.

4. Savi jumped to just muddy the waters and take the whole thing further down the "road to nowhere."

Done!

chunner

04-01-2014, 04:19 AM

Daniel, I don't know everything that happened, any nobody has been able to answer this yet: What is the crime here?

Everything Hendrik and Sergio are saying is from the public ebook. It's all public info that both Hendrik and SCWC released together. He seems to be just referencing the ebook content only in his discussions. Where is the betrayal?

If Hendrik takes a public ebook info and gives it Sergio, so what? It's public already.

Same interesting question on Robert Chu and Hendrik Santo, when and where did they learn their SCWC from Sifu Wayne Yung or his sifu?

Never heard about baisee through Facebook, and Baisee should be serious. Will Hendrik respect SCWCM ? Without doing any baisee ceremony, and in high key to make public announcement to leave SCWC. Is it suitable to do? Too bad!!! Hendrik is always proud on his wck research and knowledge. I heard Robert baisee in last October,2013 to SCWCM, and his sifu, after having a cup of tea, just show him SCWC slt only. How long Robert staying with his sifu ? How much SCWC he learn from his sifu ?

Robert claimed himself reading SCWC secret document. Did his baisee just for the document ? If it is, really sick on him. Today, both these guys betrayed SCWC, and going to Sifu Sergio. There should be a big deal there!!!

Savi

04-01-2014, 07:03 AM

A "fast one"? Let me say AGAIN that it really rankles me when people from either the HFY side or TWC side keep trying to deny and explain away what seems pretty obvious to most other people. And now we have SAVI resurfacing to do same thing!Once again completely avoiding accountability. You accuse my brothers of muddying things up and bringing up the TWC and HFY connection when it was YOU who brought it up first and YOU who are so far incapable of not talking in circles. Now you avoid that point again and now accuse me of denying and explaining what is pretty obvious? Bullsh!t. Who the hell are "most people", and why are you quoting me here and not directing your comment to me? Who are you talking to? Trying to make a spectacle or something? Ridiculous and absolutely disingenuous. You lay false claim against my brothers and I called you out on it. Clear?

Then why don't you actually go back to my last post and tell me where my logic is flawed? And just for the record here for those reading along....it is the HFY guys that are continuing to take this down the "road to nowhere", because Savi's post has contributed absolutely nothing to this discussion other than require me to restate my logical comments.For the record, untrue. Not only do you have something to prove but now you are continuing to be inconsistent in spite of Billy and me showing precisely who brought up the HFY/TWC connection. I have no interest in talking circles with you. You see no value in what I've shared in spite of quoting my content which supports Billy's content which contributes to the discussion on historical considerations to this thread, but you have your bug up your own @ss which rankles YOU. So you lump "HFY guys" together - dead horse tactic of the past flame wars - which again, sigh... dead horse BS. Who the hell are you pandering to?

Regarding your recent post about logical outcomes... your logic is not flawed but it is also incomplete from the logical outcomes I have concluded.

Are you guys just dense or what? Difference and similarities speak to the relationship between things. If you have one group of things that are more similar to each other than another group of things, then that implies that they are more closely related to each other than to the other group of things. Out of, shall we say 6 known lineages of Wing Chun (I know there are more), if 4 of them bear a strong resemblance to each, and the other 2 bear a strong resemblance to each other, logically it seems that the group of 4 are more closely related to each other and the group of 2 are more closely related to each other than either group is related to the other. Do I need to spell it out in a mathematical forumla to make it clear?Condescending tone notwithstanding - you totally missed the point of us all being related - or don't care to understand a different POV to consider. I am one post in on this discussion and you are already bypassing rather than addressing the context my points in spite of quoting me. Who is being dense? Look in the mirror. Why don't you take some time to have some tea, calm down, level your emotions, and stop being defensive? Your way of looking at things is not the only way. I am not invalidating your POV, just pointing out there are others which are also valid.

1. I made a comment that:
a. William Cheung's Wing Chun doesn't look like anyone else's Wing Chun except Hung Fa Yi. Any link between the two is still very unclear and no one is talking!If things are very unclear to you then all that "logic" you presented must not be logical enough, yet so far you have not demonstrated any maturity or intellect to reflect further that the history of WC may not fit in your box.

b. Things are still very unclear in regards to the origin of William Cheung's Wing Chun....how much came from Yip Man?...how much possible came from an as yet unrecognized source (possible Hung Fa Yi connection)?...and how much of it is William Cheung's own design?

I still stand by those statements. Those aren't rumors. Those are facts.While your (a) are statements, your (b) are not statements - those are questions, and neither (a) or (b) are facts just observations. Similar appearances are bound to exist. The differences are just as striking, which I don't expect you to know at all since you study neither TWC or HFY.

2. Billy felt the need to respond to this and say that TWC and HFY are only similar because they share the same root origin that goes back over 100 years. JP chimed in to support this idea.Do you even read what you post? Now you acknowledge that they are RESPONDING rather than instigating. Maybe your coffee kicked in.

3. I pointed out the faulty logic in this reasoning because if we go by that, TWC and HFY should be no more similar to each other than they are to Yuen Kay Shan WCK or Ku Lo WCK.Is it faulty? Or perhaps there are other possibilities going on that your so-far closed mindedness has yet to logically determine? (<--- note that is a question not a statement :cool:)

4. Savi jumped to just muddy the waters and take the whole thing further down the "road to nowhere."

Done!Perhaps from your point of view.

JPinAZ

04-01-2014, 08:20 AM

Hi Savi! You've made a lot of great points here, but unfortunately I seems it's wasted on this guy. He is going to re-word, distort and cherry pick anything anyone says to further his weird attachment to other lineages he's not part of and further his agenda. He's not interested in discussion, only misinformation and games.

What "rumors" are you talking about? Billy and JP both admitted to the strong similarities between HFY and TWC.

Point being - I never said they have a 'strong' anything.
I'm starting to think KPM is just full of sh!t.

KPM

04-01-2014, 09:23 AM

Can anyone....ANYONE....point out the flaw in the logic I have laid out? Does anyone care to chime in here and point out to the HFY guys that I am not the only one that sees this? Has everyone made note of the fact that I have been ganged up on by 3 of the HFY guys for my simple statement earlier in this thread?

Savi. Go away. If you don't have something constructive to contribute just stop mudding the waters even further. I've said what I'm going to say. You guys accusing me of being "full of sh!t", of "talking in circles", of being "ridiculous and disingenious", of being "inconsistent" (where did that come from? :rolleyes:), "condescending", "defensive" (man that one is ironic!), "immature", ....jesh did I miss anything?.....is not going to change the logic I laid out.

zuti car

04-01-2014, 09:44 AM

Relation between TWC and HFY is much simpler than anyone think , but i would not talk about that publicly . Anyway , I was wondering , how come HFY theory , which suppose to be at last 150 years old , using terminology and relations characteristic for 20th century physics ?

KPM

04-01-2014, 11:26 AM

I'm feeling generous and Savi seemed to think I was talking in circles, so I will take one more stab at this. I promise this is it guys! Rather than martial arts, lets talk about graphic arts...oil paintings, shall we?

If someone is surveying a group of oil paintings from the 1500's, they may be able to separate them out into two groups based on the similarities that they share. Sure there will be differences, because each painting will be of a different scene or subject. But by examining the similarities in coloring, perspective, brush stroke techniques, etc one can recognize what school of masters they may have come from. If you have 6 paintings, it is possible to separate out 4 that are similar enough to each other to be assigned to one school, and 2 that are similar enough to each other to be assigned a competing school of painters. Now, we could say that all of these paintings share similarities simply because they all use oil paints and canvas and the "style" of painting was fairly uniform in the 1500's. But someone with an educated eye could spot those similarities that place them in one grouping or another. Does that make sense?

Now one could argue about what makes up an "educated eye." But I will say that an art critic doesn't need to know exactly what pigments were used to mix the paint, or whether the painter was left or right handed, or who wove the canvas, or how tall the artist was. Many people that have simply taken an art appreciation class in college can recognize the similarities between schools of artists that I am talking about.

So, to follow the analogy, HFY and TWC fall into one category based on recognizable similarities between them, and YSK WCK, KL WCK, IM WCK, and YC WCK fall into another category based on the similarities between them, and someone with an educated eye can spot this. Is that so hard to follow? Is that talking in circles? Doesn't that make logical sense? And if they fall into these categories it follows that they are more closely related, just as the paintings would be in my analogy. This is ALL I have been saying, and look at the vindictiveness it has received in response!!!!

I don't know how to make it any plainer than that. So that's it! The HFY guys are welcome to try and explain that away as best they can.

VT Andy

04-01-2014, 01:44 PM

Hello Daniel Fong,

I was going through the last couple of pages and these two posts of your have me confused!

R should be Robert Chu definitely. Robert Chu had mentioned that Sifu Wayne Yung and Hendrik Santo are both his SiHings in SCWC and YKWC respectively in his Facebook postings. Also, Hendrik openly requested to baisee to Sifu Wayne Yung's sifu in the facebook, and was accepted until the baisee ceremony completed. However, later on, Hendrik posted public announcements in Facebook and KFO here, that no more relationship dealing with SCWC. Today, what he does with others dealing with the SCWC document betraying SCWC. Too bad... Are they both Qishimiezu (欺師滅祖) ?

Same interesting question on Robert Chu and Hendrik Santo, when and where did they learn their SCWC from Sifu Wayne Yung or his sifu?

Never heard about baisee through Facebook, and Baisee should be serious. Will Hendrik respect SCWCM ? Without doing any baisee ceremony, and in high key to make public announcement to leave SCWC. Is it suitable to do? Too bad!!! Hendrik is always proud on his wck research and knowledge. I heard Robert baisee in last October,2013 to SCWCM, and his sifu, after having a cup of tea, just show him SCWC slt only. How long Robert staying with his sifu ? How much SCWC he learn from his sifu ?

Robert claimed himself reading SCWC secret document. Did his baisee just for the document ? If it is, really sick on him. Today, both these guys betrayed SCWC, and going to Sifu Sergio. There should be a big deal there!!!Let me see if I read you right. You shared that Robert mentioned that Sifu Yung and Hendrik are his Sihings in SCWC and YKWC but Hendrik baisee over Facebook (is that how it is done these days?) then discharge himself. Where I am confused is in the second posts you mention Robert also baisee to SCWCM and his Sifu last October? Who is the Sifu, Hendrik’s Sifu? I heard that Hendrik’s Sifu passed away a long time ago so cannot be him.

If Robert said Sifu Yung and Hendrik are his sihings then how is it he also baisee to SCWCM does that mean his SCWCM sihing Wayne Yung is now his Sifu as well? Then both Robert and Hendrik betrayed Sifu Yung and teamed up with Sergio after getting his information. Clarify for me please? Can you also explain what is 欺師滅祖?

Thanks,
Andy

KPM

04-01-2014, 03:07 PM

Andy:

It could very well be that Robert referred to them as his "sihings" because he recognizes both of them as his seniors in their study of Wing Chun in general, not because they are senior to him within a specific lineage. That's kind of how I take it, but I could be wrong!

Wayfaring

04-01-2014, 03:21 PM

...snip sorry hate analogies....
So, to follow the analogy, HFY and TWC fall into one category based on recognizable similarities between them, and YSK WCK, KL WCK, IM WCK, and YC WCK fall into another category based on the similarities between them, and someone with an educated eye can spot this. Is that so hard to follow? Is that talking in circles? Doesn't that make logical sense? And if they fall into these categories it follows that they are more closely related, just as the paintings would be in my analogy. This is ALL I have been saying, and look at the vindictiveness it has received in response!!!!

I don't know how to make it any plainer than that. So that's it! The HFY guys are welcome to try and explain that away as best they can.

Don't really need to explain much away at all. At one point closer to initial contact years ago with TWC guys everybody including most HFY guys internally speculated about connections, possible missing link training partners, secret sifus, whatever. I think a while back though a well known TWC sifu attended one if sifu Gee's seminars and talked with him, including philosophy, techniques, approaches, and kind of concluded they were very different. So that kind of settled most everybody's speculation. At least it did for the HFY and TWC guys. But I'm sure skeptics are everywhere. BTW I have no idea by what logic you are doing your groupings above. The groups look pretty weird to me though. I mean you could group artists based on they paint in oil and focus on light. But one does abstracts and the other portraits, with very little else in common. But I hate analogies.

gumgongsao

04-01-2014, 03:33 PM

Hello, Keith

First, I am quite apalled coming to this forum with the genuine intentions of offering my knowledge, contributions and insights to answering questions that you first raised and asked in previous posts. To reiterate, I come from several Wing Chun branches with over 23 years knowledge experience and specific insights from HFY perspective as well as several other wing chun branches' perspectives and wanted to provide genuine information in debunking certain myths, slanted perspectives or unknowledgeable uneducated guess'. I've already shared with the forum that in the past more than a dozen well knowledged individuals from TWC lineage for the pure sense of art exchange have sat down, ate lunch together and chatted along with skill exchange for the good intention with possitive feedback of varying differences that we all share in the areas of forms, theory, concepts, principles, formulas to expressions and applications.

You obviously did not know how to interpret what I wrote. Then to find out that you not only did not read my posts except copy and paste bit by bit without the true meanings of what I meant, turning around and twist the original ideas for which they portray and also put words in my mouth that I did not say. I have only replied with one post on your original initiated questions and you claim that I gang up on you? You truely did not understand the gist of the ideas behind it or did you even read what I had posted? You seem to keep running in circles like a chicken head chopped off, questioning this, questioning that, comparing this, comparing that. The answers are already shown to you and it's quite simple and clear. Trying to explain something as simple as this seems to me like 对牛弹琴 (Duì niú tán qín) (to play the lute to a cow) / meaning - 'to talk philosophy to a fool.'

1. TWC and HFY share many superficial similarities that they do NOT share with Yip Man WCK, Yuen Kay Shan WCK, Ku Lo Pin Sun WCK, and other Red Boat lineages. Anyone with a good background in Wing Chun can spot this. JP and Billy have both admitted to this.
Wrong! I did not admit to anything in my original post and what's written is strictly your own perspective putting words in my mouth. Plus I truely disagree with this statement.

I think there is at least a superficial similarity between HFY and TWC that is stronger than the similiarities between HFY and YKS WCK or TWC and YSK WCK or between HFY and Ku Lo WCK or TWC and Ku Lo WCK, etc. Billy seemed to agree with that.
Wrong! Once again something written by you and accusing me of saying it in a later post. I never agreed to that statement.

What "rumors" are you talking about? Billy and JP both admitted to the strong similarities between HFY and TWC.
Wrong! Again something written by you and accusing that I said it.

So, to follow the analogy, HFY and TWC fall into one category based on recognizable similarities between them, and YSK WCK, KL WCK, IM WCK, and YC WCK fall into another category based on the similarities between them, and someone with an educated eye can spot this. Is that so hard to follow? Is that talking in circles? Doesn't that make logical sense? And if they fall into these categories it follows that they are more closely related, just as the paintings would be in my analogy. This is ALL I have been saying, and look at the vindictiveness it has received in response!!!!

Once again, from the 1850's and beyond to modern day (today), we can see clearly from many sources of documented facts that there are two separate major transfer's of knowledge based on the widespread of Wing Chun worldwide. Most of such documentation revolves around two major ancestral lines. One of such is William Cheung giving credit back to Yip Man and Yip Man giving credit back to CWS/Leung Bik from the Opera Society WCK. For me, I have true respect for all Wing Chun practitioners, and their subsequent lineages. I also have respect for GM William Chung and have very high respect for GM Yip Man and all of the subsequent branches and I believe in the official story of Yip Man not only learning from CWS but also giving credit back to Leung Bik. The other ancestral line is Hung Fa Yi Wing Chun Kuen giving credit back to the Hung Gun Boxer Society. All in all, both systems, accounts of historical event which trace back to beyond 1850's are all consistent and holds true.

Restating what I said in that post, "However, people (generally speaking) see the connection from these two lineages. Does HFY and TWC seem much more close and alike in many ways than other Wing Chun lineages? My answer is No. What is meant is that HFY and TWC has a connection, this connection persists also with HFY with YKS WCK, KL WCK, IM WCK, and YC WCK as well as any WCK. Based on my many years experience in HFY and varying branches of Wing Chun I can tell you that from my perspective simply watching HFY and TWC that we are not at all similar. What is similar is that we have Tan Sao, they have Tan Sao. We have Bong Sao, they have Bong Sao. We have Fook Sao, they have Fook Sao. These varying similarities persists throughout all WCK and all varying branches as well. The so called "connection" if you look at 2-3 generations before the 1850's going back in history, you will see that we look like third cousins. If you go 1800's prior to the split and separation of these two major influences, you will in no doubt see alot more closer in resemblance of such Wing Chun lineages of the art resembling such like 2nd cousins or first cousins. It is not a fair accessment when you truely do not know the differing factors. You claim in many posts that they look similar, from my point of view they look very different. In fact if you are genuinely pure with the good intentions of learning such differences, I invite you to come to my Chi Sao Seminar two weeks from today you can ask such questions to my face so that I can show you what we are looking at, and also eliminate the need to put words in my mouth. The question is, Do you know what you are looking at? Obviously NOT! For me there's a big big difference. I will personally reserve a spot for you.

Sifu Billy Lau

Minghequan

04-01-2014, 04:12 PM

Sifu Yung has asked me to share the following:

Sifu Wayne Yung just told me that the movie about the SCWC kuit is not coming out yet, and confirmed that the cinema release of the movie is on 7/4/2014, few days after. Hendrik, you need to make sure the right information shown in public. Another example: Hendrik referred the kuits in the video link on this interview by Ou rRadio in Cantonese in this thread Page 10 #142. It lasts for 20 mins only. However he is not the representative of Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun and baisee to Sifu Wayne's sifu in 2005. How many of us do understand Cantonese ? ================== 16/12/2012 Our Radio 國術頻道：莫偉強蛇鶴詠春門國術總會 (一) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItLyF2qaS3M&feature=youtube_gdata

Also, this guy, according to Sifu Wayne Yung, like Hendrik, made an public announcement to leave his sifu, and quit the Mun, no more be a SCWC member. I find the other formal interview by Our Radio too with Sifu Wayne Yung in Cantonese too. The title of it is Sifu Wayne Yung, Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun, talking in details about Snake Crane Wing Chun Mun. It lasts for around 1 hour long. Why Hendrik not referring to his interview by Sifu Wayne Yung ? ================== 1/11/2013 蛇鶴詠春門翁國榮師傅 01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gme-60ZGcQE ================== Here we can see how Hendrik brings incorrect information to us.

81788179

KPM

04-01-2014, 06:03 PM

Hey Billy! Thanks for the invite! But you didn't say where the seminar would be held.

Look. I apologize to you Billy and to JP if I have misrepresented you. And I apologize especially to you Billy because it is clear below that I was thinking more of what JP said than what you said. But it certainly seemed to me that both of you were admitting that TWC and HFY were closer "cousins" than HFY and other WCK lineages. Maybe I misunderstood. I know you will both think I am quoting you out of context, but here is what I saw you saying:

Billy said this in post #209:

From these TWC people, even though there are many claims that HFY and TWC looks alike, once they have come to witness and experience HFY for themselves, they see a big difference between HFY and TWC teachings ranging from theory, concepts, to principles and formulas to expressions and applications. And only those individuals who have experienced HFY for themselves can really distinguish such differences.

If it takes someone experienced in HFY to really distinguish such differences, then that sure sounds like some pretty "strong similarities" to me!

JP followed it up with this in post #210:

I also agree that look at the surface, they do share similarities that you don't see in other modern WC lines. So it's fair to say they are closer cousins that other mainstream WC lineages. and understandable to hear people from the outside of these 2 lineages to feel they have a 'link' in some way.

"Share similarities that you don't see in other modern WC lines"......"closer cousins than other mainstream WC lineages"......am I misquoting you JP?

JP said this in post #217:

yes, there are similarities in footwork positions, and some similarities in SNT that aren't seen in other mainstream lineages - that much is obvious. So yeah, since they are both WCK and both come from the same source (as does all WCK) and clearly have a closer relation than other lines, they are going to look alike. And this: they are closer cousins to each other than if compared to mainstream Ip Man WCK And this: Again, you feel they share visual more similarities if you compare to other Ip Man lineages. No one is denying that, but that's surface level stuff.

I don't think that is out of context.

So, again I apologize if those statements are not actually what you guys meant to say. But even if you retract any statements about TWC and HFY being in any way similar, it still doesn't negate the logical points I have already laid out.

KPM

04-01-2014, 06:06 PM

Ron wrote:
Sifu Yung has asked me to share the following:

Ron, someone will need to interpret that for us. I have no idea what it is talking about or referring to!

zuti car

04-01-2014, 08:28 PM

Can anyone see similarities between TWC and HFY that go beyond visual ? This what I can see
- Both styles are "the only original , true and purest " wing chun style . HFY is "softer" than TWC in their claims but basically they say same thing
-All other styles of wing chun are inferior or incomplete to thous two ,while William said that directly ,Gee is saying that indirectly ,but both are saying same thing
-Both styles have unverifiable histories and trace their origin to the person who never existed .
-Both "grandmasters" completed learning before age of 18 , but no one actually know what did they learn and how long did they trained . In Williams case we know he learned from Yip Man something , but what he said about the matter and what other people ,who trained with Yip Man at same time as William, said about his training are different . In Gee's case we don't know nothing , starting with his birth place ( he claims that he was born in China ) .
-Both "grandmasters" are sole inheritor of the art .
-The art was secret , passed down only to family members or carefully chosen disciples until William and Gee decided , from the goodness of their heart ($$$), to share their knowledge with the world .
-Both styles have overdeveloped theory to support their claims about style's superiority and they are using terminology and relations that could not exist in 1850's in China , nevertheless , they are claiming that styles are perfect and didn't changed since 1850's .
-Both "grandmasters" are tremendous fighter , and while William kicked asses to 12 people with knives , Gee is much more humble , he kicked asses to 3 or 4 guys somewhere .
-Cult like behavior , which is much more obvious in HFY .

What I see is exactly the same marketing strategy with specific targets and adjustment to the time period when promotion actually started . Williams approach is more direct , more crude than Gee's approach , but it was very well planned and very well suited for time period when William started to promote him self publicly . Gee's approach is more detailed and far less direct than William's but in essence he is telling exactly the same story. The only difference is , william targeted wide range of individuals while Gee is targeting specific "mind frame" and people in HFY are involved in the style much longer than people in TWC .

chunner

04-01-2014, 08:42 PM

still waiting for someone to list out the exact grievances. What info was stolen? What secrets shared? It's all public info from the ebook.

Ron wrote:
Sifu Yung has asked me to share the following:

Ron, someone will need to interpret that for us. I have no idea what it is talking about or referring to!

PalmStriker

04-01-2014, 08:59 PM

Daniel Fong

04-01-2014, 10:37 PM

KPM

04-02-2014, 03:49 AM

Well, this certainly isn't going to make the HFY guys happy! I see a real sh!t storm coming now! Get ready! :eek: But really guys, this thread now has over 8,000 hits. Are there only 2 of us that see that there is a similarity between TWC and HFY that goes beyond the fact that they share a common origin from over 150 years ago? Does ANYONE agree with the simple logic I have laid out to say that any relationship between them has to be more recent than 150 years ago? You need to speak up, because so far....other than zuti....4 HFY guys have posted and tried to make it look like I am the one that is crazy or rude or with a political agenda...or something. And really, I'm just trying to talk a little logical common sense here. So a little support would be nice!

Can anyone see similarities between TWC and HFY that go beyond visual ? This what I can see
- Both styles are "the only original , true and purest " wing chun style . HFY is "softer" than TWC in their claims but basically they say same thing
-All other styles of wing chun are inferior or incomplete to thous two ,while William said that directly ,Gee is saying that indirectly ,but both are saying same thing
-Both styles have unverifiable histories and trace their origin to the person who never existed .
-Both "grandmasters" completed learning before age of 18 , but no one actually know what did they learn and how long did they trained . In Williams case we know he learned from Yip Man something , but what he said about the matter and what other people ,who trained with Yip Man at same time as William, said about his training are different . In Gee's case we don't know nothing , starting with his birth place ( he claims that he was born in China ) .
-Both "grandmasters" are sole inheritor of the art .
-The art was secret , passed down only to family members or carefully chosen disciples until William and Gee decided , from the goodness of their heart ($$$), to share their knowledge with the world .
-Both styles have overdeveloped theory to support their claims about style's superiority and they are using terminology and relations that could not exist in 1850's in China , nevertheless , they are claiming that styles are perfect and didn't changed since 1850's .
-Both "grandmasters" are tremendous fighter , and while William kicked asses to 12 people with knives , Gee is much more humble , he kicked asses to 3 or 4 guys somewhere .
-Cult like behavior , which is much more obvious in HFY .

What I see is exactly the same marketing strategy with specific targets and adjustment to the time period when promotion actually started . Williams approach is more direct , more crude than Gee's approach , but it was very well planned and very well suited for time period when William started to promote him self publicly . Gee's approach is more detailed and far less direct than William's but in essence he is telling exactly the same story. The only difference is , william targeted wide range of individuals while Gee is targeting specific "mind frame" and people in HFY are involved in the style much longer than people in TWC .

BPWT..

04-02-2014, 04:37 AM

Are there only 2 of us that see that there is a similarity between TWC and HFY that goes beyond the fact that they share a common origin from over 150 years ago? Does ANYONE agree with the simple logic I have laid out to say that any relationship between them has to be more recent than 150 years ago?

You are not alone. :D

I think that many readers probably agree with you, KPM... but the reason many have not posted is that they, unlike you, haven't experienced (first hand) TWC or HFY. Myself, I've not met anyone from either group (so I'm truly uninformed :D). Outside of the US, is there much HFY being taught?

But over the years many people have said they see similarities between the two, and here some of the HFY guys have said that there are indeed 'superficial' similarities, etc.

For me, your logic is, well, logical. ;)

Arts mutate and change over time, sometimes in a short period of time, and so yes - it seems very odd for some to say that over the course of 150 years the two arts mentioned still retain a pretty common look because of that 150-year-old connection, and not because of more recent interaction.

Personally, I have a difficult time accepting William Cheung's story of how he learned TWC from Yip Man, if only for that fact that is makes no sense that YM would learn this TWC from LB (if we even accept that story), and then YM would somehow know and be training this TWC in secret but never showing anyone (until Master WC came along). How would someone be able to hide this method when teaching and training with others??? Wouldn't it just 'slip out', so to speak.

That said, I also don't believe William C made it all up himself... he learned it from somewhere, and if what he does has more similarities with HFY than it does with YM, YKS, etc Wing Chun, then it seems logical that he had contact with HFY, or a very similar art... in recent times. Why? Because I don't believe William C is over 150 years old. :)

ziti car's post will either be ignored by the HFY and TWC guys, or they will unleash all manner of internet rage at it. :D Although he/she is not playing politely with that post, it does raise a few interesting points... so I hope people will respond to it.