Are There any books on Leung Sheungs Wing Chun That i can buy

[FIRE HAWK]

Are there any books on Leung Sheungs Wing Chun that i can buy or that anybody knows of ?

[kj]

Here is a link to an excellent exploratory essay by Dr. Jack 'Tok Fok' Ling, a student of Leung Sheung. See the article titled "Reflections on Popular Notions of Wing Chun Kuen" on the Stanford Wing Chun (http://www.stanford.edu/group/wingchun/articles.html) articles page.

There is a lot of other information to peruse on various student group websites. Check the links and resources page at Rochester Wing Chun (http://www.rochesterwingchun.com)

You might also find a few others in the long URL list on the links page at Wingchun.com (http://www.wingchun.com)

Hope that tides you over for awhile.
- Kathy Jo

[reneritchie]

Technically Leung Ting sifu was a student of Leung Sheung sifu for some time and while his dummy and weapons seem closer to latter-period students, and his Wing Tsun has become a system unto itself, until Chung sifu, Ling sifu, or someone similar finally gets around to putting pen to paper, it's probably the only thing even close out there.

Rgds,

RR

[Miles Teg]

It would be good if Keneth Chung put a book out.

What sort of footwork do they use in his schools? I have always wondered why Ling Ting uses 100/0 and I wonder if it was from Leung Sheung taught this way or whether Yip Man taught both ways.

[kj]

Yes, Leung Sheung, taught back leg weighting, as did some other students of Ip Man.

[Miles Teg]

What about turning side to side from a frontal stance?
I know of one style that has 50/50 when turning but when it comes to advancing they put all their weight on the back leg.

[kj]

Turning can occur by shifting, stepping, or kicking. Turning by shifting may be more natural in one direction from a 100/0 weighting, but well trained practitioners seem to have no trouble going whichever direction they will, when their feet aren't nailed to the floor. With people who are strong and very comfortable on their back leg and with the front leg free, I wouldn't take them lightly.

Some take the other argument that it takes 50/50 people too long to change weight to kick, or that their kicks are telegraphed. The 50/50 people have their answers for this too. There are more arguments for and against each weighting option of course, not limited to turning and kicks, but you probably get the drift.

100/0 preference is optimized for some things, 50/50 preference is optimized for others. People don't just stand around in 100/0 or 50/50 in a fight either, but sometimes that is the mental image painted and helps us to argue more. An emphasis on 100/0 in training builds capacity, but doesn't mean it must be used in same proportions in application. Everyone who kicks assumes 100/0 sometimes, and everyone with yee jee kim yeung ma has 50/50.

For every time a 100/0 or 50/50 person says - "see you can't do that" there is some reply "so what, I can do this instead." As with everything, pick your poison, then train it well enough so as to minimize whatever its disadvantages. The key, IMHO, is to pick something that is most consistent and synergistic with the other key elements of your approach. Make sure it all "fits together," or better yet, select an approach that already comes packaged well. :)

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[reneritchie]

The 100/0 is also found in some Mainland systems, like Sum Nung's. It's a bit of an illusion, though, since you almost never stand 100/0, it's purely a reaction (same way you wouldn't stand with a Tan Sao out hoping someone hit you exactly the right way for Tan Sao to counter).

Rgds,

RR

[Sihing73]

Hello,

KJ as always I find your posts informative and well articulated. However, I am curious about something, I was under the impression that Kenneth Chung taught more of a 50/50 approach and got from your post that it might be more of 100/0. Although your post explains very well that neither approach is necessarily better or worse but could depend on the circumstances, I would still feel that one would take an approach which leaned more one way than the other.

Having studied under Leung Tings organization and now under Chung Kwok Chow I have seen two different braches from the Leung Sheung tree, Sifu Chow is from Sifu Ng Wah Sum who, unless I am mistaken, also trained under Leung Sheung. Each one approaches things somewhat differently. I have also noticed Sifu Chow make some changes over the years based on experience and interaction with other Wing Chun people. For example, Sifu Chow used to teach the Bic Bo with weight on the rear leg in greater proporation to the front but now uses a different step which is more 50/50. The stance has also changes slightly over the years to become slightly wider as well.

I am not advocating one approach over the other. As you stated the key is in finding what works for you and then training it so that it is there when you need it. I am curious though as to how others of the Leung Sheung line may have changes their individual approaches over the years. For example, has Sifu Chung made any changes to the footwork and stance based on his experience and body type? What I am getting at is that I am interested in seeing who does the closest to Leung Sheung's original teaching. Also, it would be itneresting to compare early students with later students as most Sifu seem to change both teaching method and emphasis as they grow, Yip Man is a fine example.

Feel free to e-mail me directly if you wish. This is no attempt to promote one approach over another but an actual interest in comparing how members of the same family may change over time yet still keep the core intact. This could become a thread unto its own with discussion of turning methods, root etc, all based on the same initial teaching.

Peace,

Dave

[kj]

I think you and I have touched on this before within this forum, but unfortunately I can't reference the thread. Most of my old posts don't show up on a search anymore.


I was under the impression that Kenneth Chung taught more of a 50/50 approach and got from your post that it might be more of 100/0.

Ken advocates 100/0 training, as did Leung Sheung. Similarly, I have personally met 3 other Leung Sheung students, and there is no equivocation on 100/0 with any of them.


Although your post explains very well that neither approach is necessarily better or worse but could depend on the circumstances, I would still feel that one would take an approach which leaned more one way than the other.

Understanding pros and cons doesn't negate having a personal opinion and preference. ;) I often think it is best to leave something to the reader, especially in broad audiences.


Sifu Chow is from Sifu Ng Wah Sum who, unless I am mistaken, also trained under Leung Sheung. Each one approaches things somewhat differently. I have also noticed Sifu Chow make some changes over the years based on experience and interaction with other Wing Chun people.

When I met Chow sifu a few years ago (at an Ip Ching seminar), he clearly had a preference for 50/50 footwork, and was very gracious in explaining to a small group of us why he had chosen to incorporate it. He was clear then, as I believe he is now, that his approach is an "integrated" one, rather than following strictly to any particular lineage or approach. If I am not mistaken, he even calls his approach "Integrative Wing Chun," and his website credits influence from no fewer than 12 people in addition to his formal teacher, including some non-Wing Chun people.


? What I am getting at is that I am interested in seeing who does the closest to Leung Sheung's original teaching.

Ken is probably the most well-known (aside from the Leung Ting connection Rene mentioned). Others I know include Dr. Jack Ling, Siu Wong, and Danny "Ah Dak" Liu in Hong Kong. While there will always be some individualized differences, these people are all in general agreement about the nature and detail of Leung Sheung's teaching. As with anything, there will be a few people of differing opinion.

Hope that helps.
- Kathy Jo

[yuanfen]

The connection between the side stancing of Leung Ting and Leung Shun is fairly self evident... but I was under the impression,
perhaps mistaken, that Leung Ting learned more from one of Leung Shun's students rather than Leung Shun himself in getting started.

[Sihing73]

Hi Kathy Jo,

At what Ip Ching seminar did you meet with Sifu Chow? I ask because I attended a seminar with Ip Chun in NYC sometime around 91-92 I think. Curious if we have ever crossed paths. Although Ip Ching and Ip Chun are two different people I was curious about the possibility of your having attended the Ip Chun seminar in NYC.

Sifu Chow is very open about his method being an integration of several parts. He has modified his approach based on both his experience and that of others. He seems to have the attitude that all have merit and if he sees something which he likes and which will improve his Wing Chun he will incorporate or integrate it into his system. His dummy form for example is about 90% what he was originally taught and roughly 10% integrated from exposure to other Wing Chun people.

I know that Sifu Chow has met and speaks highly of Sifu Chung, I guess I just thought they were closer in approach on some things. I do belive that Sifu Chow used to do 100/0 some time ago as I remember learning the Bic Bo which is almost 100/0 in application. However, he has been doing 50/50, as you stated, for quite a number of years now. One thing I have always admired about him is that he is very open minded and willing to show why he does something. If he finds another method which will work better he will play with it and then integrate it into his approach to make his interpretation better. It is interesting to compare the old method with the newest method.

Training can take one form while application may require some modifications to that training "form". I hope that we will get the chance to meet one of these days. My wife and kids would love an excuse to travel up your way, perhaps on the way to the Falls, though a bit of a side trip, lol. Of course, you really should get down to visit Philly as we are the seat of Liberty and Independence. Maybe the next "Wing Chun/Friendship Gathering" would be enough to entice you to visit with us. :)

I am very interested in Sifu Chungs approach particularily in the area of stance and structure. We should discuss this further. As to old posts no longer being available I think the migration to the new server left some in the netherworld. :( Some very good material was lost, as well as some senseless dribble which I, for one, do not miss.

Peace,

Dave

[kj]

At what Ip Ching seminar did you meet with Sifu Chow?

It was in Albany, maybe '96 or thereabouts. That was the only time I saw Ip Ching, except once on a passing visit to the VTAA in Hong Kong. I have spoken with Chow sifu briefly on a couple of other occasions, but that seminar was also the only time I met him in person. If he remembers me at all, it would more likely be from the phone calls or emails than the seminar.


I was curious about the possibility of your having attended the Ip Chun seminar in NYC.

I never did meet Ip Chun. Ip Chun and Ip Ching were both influential through my first and second teachers. Many of my classmates attended several seminars with each of them respectively.


Sifu Chow is very open about his method being an integration of several parts. He has modified his approach based on both his experience and that of others.

Yes, he always seems very open about this.


I know that Sifu Chow has met and speaks highly of Sifu Chung, I guess I just thought they were closer in approach on some things.

Of course there will be some similar things and some different things. Weighting preference is probably one of the more notable differences.


I hope that we will get the chance to meet one of these days.

Ditto. Do let me know if you manage to arrange that Niagara Falls trip. Who knows, if we get really really lucky, maybe your wife will find inspiration for WC after all. ;) I have some family in the Philly area, though it's been decades since I've been there, and really ought to make another visit. I'll be sure to let you know if I ever manage to get back down there.

Thanks for your kind thoughts. Our exchanges are always a pleasure.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[reneritchie]

Hey Joy,

Leung Ting sifu's maternal uncles, Cheng Pak and Cheng Fook, I believe, were both students of Leung Sheung sifu. There are some accounts of him actually beginning WCK with one or both of them. Leung Ting himself, I think, has stated they merely introduced him to study with their sifu, Leung Sheung.

Rgds,

RR

[kj]

If I remember correctly (caveat), Leung Ting was known to attend Leung Sheung's evening classes during the same general time period when Jack Ling studied. Jack, being one of Leung Sheung's youngest students, was primarily in day classes at the time. From what I understand, the night classes often had an older, if somewhat dicier demographic.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Miles Teg]

Hi
I have trained in a Ling Ting lineage before so I feel I know the pros and cons of each way. Although personally I prefer the 50/50 now. I wasnt trying to get at which one is better or worse, but what I really want to know is how there can be 2 different ways in the first place. I know both ways have their merits but they are also completely different. I mean in application I feel there are different principles at work when using these 2 different styles.
I dont know which one is better and I dont really care but I know they are very different.

So what I am most curious about is if Leung Sheung taught this way, does it mean that Yip Man taught 2 ways. As I said I believe they are very different so I think it would be strange if this were so.
Ive heard that Yip Man left a lot of things up to his students to decide for themselves so I wonder if this is one of those.

[kj]

Ive heard that Yip Man left a lot of things up to his students to decide for themselves so I wonder if this is one of those.

Again, in reference to Dr. Jack Ling's article, he proposes 4 possible explanations for variability:




that most Wing Chun students do not or did not practice Sil Niem Tao in the proper rigorous manner;
that most Wing Chun teachers fail to teach the proper rigor required to practice the Sil Niem Tao;
that most of Yip Man's students developed the art according to their own personal needs and preferences,
that Yip Man was an uneven or generally unwilling teacher, sharing particular information selectively



There are undoubtely true cases for each of these. While I might phrase as "some" rather than "most", and substituting Jack's reference to Siu Niem Tau with any given element of practice in question, I believe that a combination of these factors explain the many differences observed in the practice of Ip Man Wing Chun today.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[hunt1]

Miles,
Both footwork weighting preferences are correct.it is not one or the other.There is a time and place for both.


To those who say back leg weighting is correct.Do you use the 0/100 stance for he weapons?

[kj]

Your post reads more as an assertion and rhetorical question, than an inquiry, which is fine of course. My apology if I misread your intent.

It occurs to me that if you receive direct answers, they may be tenuous at best, until and unless we understand the responder's viewpoint and interpretation on the meaning and importance of the weapons sets within Wing Chun. That may make an interesting thread or line of inquiry some day, and some may find more and different viewpoints on weapons than anticipated.

The previous elements of discussion spur this question for me: "What weighting do you apply when you practice chum kiu?" Maybe that too should be a new thread though.

Just some rambling considerations.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[hunt1]

My question about weapon stance was a real question.I ask it because I do not view the weapons as seperate from the empty hands forms.I view the weapons as empty hand forms done with weapons.For example you can do any form with swords so does that make all forms sword forms or the sword form another empty hand form done with swords to get the extra benefit training with weapons gives.Besides the obvious learning to deal with weapons.

If you use 50/50 in your weapon sets than 50/50 is also used with open hands.If you say always 0/100 then your weapons should be done 0/100.If not then there is a reason that needs to be explored .

As to my chum kui .All forms contain 50/50 stance training ( the smart A$#2 answer).i understand your question.I perform chum Kui both ways 10/90 stepping and 50/50 stepping.Both IMO have their place so i train both.

[reneritchie]

Hi,

With the pole, I'm usually in Ding Jee Ma ("T" Shape Horse), which is 100/0 but different in form than that stepping or turning Kim Yeung Ma. With the knives, the footwork is pretty much the same as the boxing.

Rgds,

RR

[kj]

Hi again hunt1.

I follow your reasoning; thank you. I do not yet practice the knife set or pole. While I have much more to learn, I do agree that the knife footwork is relevant. Pole footwork may be more questionable. This is from the viewpoint and premise of the pole being imported or "borrowed" into the system to enhance training of the hands, and not by virtue of its own existing footwork. (For anyone who disagrees on the premise, all bets are off of course.) I also agree with the view of knives as extensions of the hands and as an enhancement to their training.

I am forever fascinated to learn how Leung Sheung taught, and the reasons behind it, so I am always listening to learn more and increase my understanding.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[Roy D. Anthony]

I agree with you Hunt 1 except on one point. Depending on which lineage you are from, the blades are not conducive with all Siu Nim Tao's. (not putting anyone down, just referring to how the form is performed)

[Miles Teg]

Thank you for your input KJ


Just out of interest who is Dr Jack Ling? Anyone?

[kj]

... is an early student of Leung Sheung. He is technically my "sibak" and also a friend.

Regards,
- Kathy Jo

[hunt1]

Rene - I follow Yip Chings pole form.therefore I use both t-stance and 50/50 stepping(step into deephorse stance).The form has both forward and back stepping and moves to the angles.

Roy-I agree SLT takes some reworking to use the knives.

[Miles Teg]

There is another thing Im interested in knowing...

I read a very good article by Keneth Chung that you have all probably read. In it he talks about how circles are employed in his techniques, vertically, horizontally, diagonally etc. He mentions how the tan sao to bong should spiral. This interests me as the same idea is employed in what I do now (Chu Shong Tin). However when I did a Ling Ting style lineage we didn't do a tan.bong in this fashion. The wrist stays in the same place and the elbow goes straight up. This is probably the only way if the elbow is right in the center line as they practice.
Therefore I guess that if Keneth Chung imploys spiral movement from tan to bong then the elbow must be out of the center line a bit. In the style I practice now the elbow doesn't need to be in, just down, and as one becomes more advanced the elbow goes in a bit more but not right to the center.

In short, where is the elbow kept for a Tan sao for Keneth Chun schools and what about other Leung Shun exponents?

Hunt 1 what about Yip Ching?