Wing Chun techs in MMA competitions

[Jim Roselando]

Hello all,


I am kind of late with this discussion but a couple of points.

If Wong Wah Bo had 2 students (Leung Jan & Fok Bo Chuen), and both students had pupils, then all we need to do is take a look at how they preserve the teaching to find (cross check) similarities in forms/structure/movement/etc.. The teaching of Leung Jan most resembles the teaching of Yuen Kay San. Both are extremely similar so this whole secret footwork/art of Leung Jan is kind of an old story that should be put to rest.

Let me give you an small example of what I mean! The movements Leung Jan taught in as his root to the Koo Lo (from his original Siu Lin Tao set) art preserved by the Dai Sihing of the village are so close to the movements in the Yuen Kay San form you would have to say they stem from the same source!

Another example? Ok! Lets say you are correct that Leung Jan had some secret version of WC and only taught it to his sons and basically watered down the art for the rest of the people he taught his "whole life" then that would mean the art that Wong Wah Bo taught him was the only real secret methods and the stuff he taught Fok Bo Chuen was the odd ball changed one? Why would he do that? Leung was not related to him? Yet! They are both too similar for that to be the case! Yet again! He taught his own nephew (family member) Leung Bak Chung in Koo Lo village the same compact (or as you call it "modified) WC that he taught eveyone else so we can discard the secret family story.

Our village information maintains that while Leung Bik did learn some WC he was not very skilled. We do not get any self promotion out of saying this (as the Koo Lo family does not have any public school or make any money from their families WC) so maybe the info is correct and maybe not. Also, the fact is a few of Leung sifu's Futshan students knocked Bik is well known. Plus! Yip Man's "own" written history makes no mention of Leung Bik in it.

Another yet! If Leung Bik was into this real secret art that was only passed down in the Leung family then what makes you think he would teach a boy who he did not know sqwat about? Yip was not his family! The Fung family of Koo Lo hardly ever teaches outsiders/non family. Hendrik also mentioned the Cho's hardly ever teach outside the family. It would not be common in traditional Chinese Kung Fu family way!


I think the Modified/Traditional story has seen its day. Most Red Boat Kung Fu looks pretty similar so even if all this info is incorrect we can go with what is more likely than less likely. We are better off talking about technical stuff as its easier to learn from!


Regards,

[yuanfen]

Jim- the 3-4 Koo Lo folks provide their perspective of what Leung Jan taught them in his last 3 years of his life. The Ip man folks have their perspective also on what Leung Jan taught. Regarding Ip man not mentioning Leung Bik in his brief written history, two points that I repeatedly make...

1. Ip Man told many folks including his own sons about Leung Bik.
Wang Kiu's opinions are his own .Everyone has opinions.

2. Ip man as per the existing tradition lists his first teacher
Chan Wah Son as his sifu. Listing the first teacher does not mean that IM as well as others didnt learn from others besides their first teacher.

On "Victor's" claims-- I thought that those preposterous claims including still hurling the "modified" label at others was a thing of the past. It was laughable then and even more laughable now...
of Ip Man giving "truth" exclusively and secretly to a teen ager who moves to Australia. I am commenting on the myths not on the TWC motions.

Stories of masters giving the entire truth to one or more teenagers in a brief few years of association flies against what we know of the whole world of TCMA transmission in taiji, tong long mantis, ba qua and other styles.

I choose not to do TWC--- has nothing to do with myths. I do what I do because I perceive it and experience it as effective.
History is too important to be left to ideologues. In terms of practice , the present is all that matters.

In any case what is often overlooked is the massive and iportant contribution that Ip man himself made to the art synthesizing and pruning what he learned and knew.He stood on the shoulders of giants...BUT he advanced the art from where he found it. A natural story of progress in a live art.

[desertwingchun2]

Ultimatewingchun wrote: "... and since I have seen similarities between Garrett Gee's Hung Fa YI and TWC...and since I know for a fact that Gee never learned from William Cheung or any of Cheung's students...perhaps Hung Fa Yi derives it's lineage from one of Leung Jan's 2 sons ???"

Here is a link to the HFY lineage:

http://home.vtmuseum.org/genealogy/h...amily_tree.php

"By the way..Benny Meng started with Moy Yat..then had his mind blown by the FOOTWORK while partcipating in a William Cheung seminar...kissed up bigtime to William...then travelled hundreds of miles (an 8 hour car ride) to attend another William Cheung seminar a few weeks later...AND THEN TURNED AROUND AFTER MEETING GARRETT GEE AND SEEING AN OPPORTUNITY TO BECAME SOMEBODY WITHIN GARRETT GEE'S NEWLY EMERGING ORGANIZATION...BEGAN TALKING TRASH ABOUT WILLAM CHEUNG AND THE LEGITIMACY OF TRADITONAL WING CHUN!!!"

What did you wish to acheive by bringing my Sigung into this conversation? The content within your quote above is innacurate and extremely insulting. I don't know what you are trying to achieve by posting comments like these. You are not furthering your cause by insulting any Wing Chun family and or its members.

[tparkerkfo]

Hi Rene,

Grepo sifu's full assertion, at least as I have read it, is that Cheung sifu went to China and learned more martial arts while avoiding trouble with the Tong's in HK (I don't remember if he claimed Cheung learned another branch of WCK or if he learned his family's version of Baguazhang, or both). Grepo sifu does not assert that Cheung sifu learned HFY, but rather that HFY as it is now known comes from Cheung sifu giving private lessons in San Francisco during his seminar visits to the US over the last few decades.

I have heard an alternate account, from Meng sifu, that Cheung sifu did learn from one of the other HFY teachers, however, so it is one possibility.

IMHO, there is no significant evidence yet presented to support either account, and thus arguments made either way can only be formed from personal opinion (unfortunately, those seem to be the ones that cause the most argument).

Just saw this. As you know, I visited Gee sifu a while ago as a guest of one of his students. This was before There was much if any involvement with Benny Meng. Gee sifu was very gracious and spoke freely on many topics, some of which were touchy and probably should not have been discussed with the likes of me.

I have nothing to gain if HFY lives or dies. I have no connection to TWC. I like wing chun and I enjoy its history. But I don't take sides as it is lame and doesn't serve any purpose. And I have no reason to argue against either organization.

With that said, I spoke with Gee sifu for several hours. I can not say if what he told me is true or not. But he told me a couple interesting things. One of which is that he had absolutly no involvment with William Cheung. He did not train him and he was not trained by him. He said he only had one exposure to TWC and that was when someone visited his school once many years ago. Only a short visit nothing more. He said he has several TWC videos and that he sees major differences. I see major similarities but that is not what i am speaking to. If ANY one suggests that Gee sifu learned TWC through Video tapes, they are obviously mistaken. Gee has some real skills, that did not come from video. Some one some where trainied him.

ANother thing to note that someone else said, is what does Gee sifu gain in the HFY stuff? He is already skilled in a fairly famous and respected family style of Gung Fu. Why wing Chun if he never really studied it? And why something so odd as TWC? Were is the money incentives? He didn't make his money on teaching HFY? Heck, they don't have a large school, or atleast didn't, and he only does a few seminars. I think money is not their nor fame. He is not pushing his system, Benny is. I just don't see the motive here.

Personally, I think there is a connection between HFY and TWC. But I think Gee sifu is teaching honestly what he was taught. Though I don't think we have all the info on HFY. I think there is a connection between HFY, TWC, and possible illegal activities as mentioned by others which currently help to hide the truth. Maybe we will see more substantial info at a latter date.

Tom

[anerlich]

With that said, I spoke with Gee sifu for several hours. I can not say if what he told me is true or not. But he told me a couple interesting things. One of which is that he had absolutly no involvment with William Cheung. He did not train him and he was not trained by him. He said he only had one exposure to TWC and that was when someone visited his school once many years ago. Only a short visit nothing more. He said he has several TWC videos and that he sees major differences. I see major similarities but that is not what i am speaking to. If ANY one suggests that Gee sifu learned TWC through Video tapes, they are obviously mistaken. Gee has some real skills, that did not come from video. Some one some where trainied him.

Tom, this is interesting stuff. I'm glad to hear that GG has actually said something to someone about this issue. I think a TWC/HFY link has to be discounted. The notion that HFY is TWC with a false nose, moustache and glasses is ridiculous.

?

Maybe we will see more substantial info at a latter date.

It's possible. More likely that we will see more unsubstantiated assertions, biased and grandiose accounts and claims, and flame wars, from all parties involved

In what will probably be an unsuccessful attempt to stop this devolving into another lineage promoting/bashing thread like the one that Sandy closed recently, let me ask: what do other grappling cross-trainers see regarding the application of WC hands to grappling?

[anerlich]

but rather that HFY as it is now known comes from Cheung sifu giving private lessons in San Francisco during his seminar visits to the US over the last few decades.

Yeah, right, and the Illuminati are behind the war on Iraq.

If this were true, I can't see Sigung Cheung keeping quiet about his role in it. He's never been particularly reticent about his own abilities and accomplishments. Nor could I see him keeping Mum while GG & BM tout what he taught them as something independent. Better for Sigung Cheung that he get another two TWC instructors on board in the US.

And this would have done - why? Who gains from such a conspiracy? I'll start wearing a tinfoil beanie before I accept that "theory".

[tparkerkfo]

LOL, Great points Andrew. LOL. I just don't see the direct connection between the two myself either. It don't add up. Why would William train some one and either not claim him or not disown him? William is not known for his discretion! If there was a link, I think we would have heard about it one way or another. By the way, is William even aware of HFY or Garrett? Has any one actually asked him or heard him speak of the topic? Just a thought.

However, to be honest, I do see a lot in common between the styles. I have looked at several different styles of wing chun, YKS(from two sources), Pan Nam, various Yip Man, and Yik Kam. Most of these were indeed brief visits and others a little more indepth. I find that there are a lof of similarities. The SLT takes a similar structure in each one of these systems. The foundation is the same. With Pan Nam, I had to look a bit harder, but I saw it all there. But with HFY, it is almost exactly the same as William Cheungs SLT complete with the steping. Who else has stepping in SLT..... Who else has two SLT? The overall theme is fairly close...though Garrett Gee did go through the system and tell me exactly what the differences are. Most of it went right over my head as it seems to do for their own practioners in many cases.

Yes Garrett Gee discussed this at great length. I beleive what he says for the most part. I beleive that he learned from who he said he learned from. He was very open. I think there is much more that lies beneath the surface though and he is only telling part of the story. My beleif is William had some connection with a system that Gee's sifu taught. This is just my interpretations.

Also, just to put it out there, I have seen VERY LITTLE of TWC so it is hard for me to really judge the two. I have seen much more HFY than TWC.

Thanks for your perspectives.
Tom

[bglenn]

I see alot of people post that Hung fa yi and traditional wing chun of william cheung are very similar but without any details.Is it the forms,footwork,or the favoring the outside(blindside)line?

[yuanfen]

For the record, I beg out of that discussion Glenn. In the larger scheme of things IMO it doesnt matter.... and weill soon end up witha long irrelevant thread.
Anerlich was trying to get back to the original thread theme and see
how wc is relevant in mma.

[bglenn]

Yuan fen this is already a long irrellevant thread.Me asking the question is not going to take this thread any further off subject than it already is.The problem is that you cant even ask certain questions without starting arguments.

[planetwc]

Well at least one thing is forms.

Seeing Marty Goldberg demo one of the TWC SLT followed by Benny Meng doing HFY SLT on video looks very very similar.

Originally posted by bglenn
I see alot of people post that Hung fa yi and traditional wing chun of william cheung are very similar but without any details.Is it the forms,footwork,or the favoring the outside(blindside)line?

[tparkerkfo]

I agree this post is long and weildy.

My comments are that I am not very knowledgeable on TWC so any thing I say may be incorrect. But, what I saw was the choreography os SLT was very close. As I stated above, I have seen other lineages that were close in the overall structure, none were visualy close in choreography. The two main things were the steping in SLT. ONLY TWC and HFY has stepping. Only these two have 2 SLT.

There are other things that looks imilar to me. Both seem to favor the blind side...but more than that it is the flavor in which they do it is very close. If I went to the bliind side, it would be very different. I see a lot of similarities in the motions of the body and arms. I tend to call it large frame, but I am not sure if that is correct. I see some similarities in the foot work as well.

I was Marty and some one from the VTM do SLT in LA. It was very close. I was actually stunned because it was too close.

Just my thoughts.
Tom

[bougeac]

is the "superior" twc footwork the same footwork that william cheung used so successfully against emin boztepe in cologne in 1986, if so wow!!!, i definately need some of that....

[t_niehoff]

anerlich wrote:

But they learned the ultimate WC system! They shouldn't NEED to be fighters! AN

I hear from time to time folks using the distinction of technician vs. fighter ("he's a great technician, but just not a fighter"), and IMO that distinction just doesn't make sense. You can be a great fighter without knowing WCK, you can have bad WCK and be a good fighter (where you win for reasons other than WCK), but you can't have good WCK without being a good fighter (where would you ever hear such talk? He's a great technical bjj'er but always taps . . . he's a great technical boxer but always gets KO'ed . . .I'm a WCK master but just can't fight!). TN

When I hear folks say that they have the "ultimate" or "superior" system, I feel sorry for them -- not only have they swallowed the "marketing" (baah, baah -- it is the year of the sheep) but they don't even have a firm grasp on reality. Let's face it, if that were true they'd be ruling NHBs (at least then there would be some evidence to support a claim; as it stands there is none). The fact that they're not either suggests that their marketing is hype or that all of the "superior" system's practitioners must be either incompetant or untalented as they can't seem to make the "ultimate fighting art" work! TN

Terence

[Jim Roselando]

Hello Joy,


I understand your points and like I said at the end of the e-mail;

Even if all this stuff is incorrect we can still go with what is more likely rather than less likely.

I tend to think that most of the history stuff can be debated for ever but the true links would be in the technical/structural DNA (as Terence called it). That the real key to linking arts and TWC has very little technical/structural linkage to Leung Jan's core teaching. That doesnt mean its not an effective means of self defense but it just means its highly highly unlikely for it to be Leung Jan's teaching.


Take care!


Regards,